Talk:Smithy code

Cryptography: Computer science Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science (assessed as Low-importance).

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Code

Not really knowing Python, I decided to give the code thing a shot, and downloaded Python, ran the thing and got an invalid syntax on the last line print s.join([decrypt(n, c) for n, c in enumerate(ciphertext)]) Again, not knowing Python, I don't know how to fix it, but it should be fixed. 223ankher (talk) 01:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have entered the line incorrectly. Rather than:

print s.join([decrypt(n, c) for n, c in enumerate(ciphertext)])

It should read:

print "".join([decrypt(n, c) for n, c in enumerate(ciphertext)])

which works for me. I am also a Python novice, but as I understand it, "".join( ... ) is calling the join() method against a string object, "" (an empty string.) s.join( ... ) would be calling it against an object called s, which has not been defined, hence the error. -- Securiger (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it also not be better to have the code in pseudo-code rather than python? I only think that because pseudo-code is generalisable to any programming language, not just python. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.102.183 (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Complexity

This article is ridiculously complex for a layman to read. If you are unaware of the most basic forms of chypering this article is overwhelming and confusing to read. None of the terms herein are adequetly explained and the article on the whole is not well explained at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.186.166 (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speculative solution

Um, the proposed solution under "Possible answers" seems rather far-fetched, don't you think? Bromskloss 18:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite, Wikipedia is not a place for stuff like this, which is effectively original research and rather useless besides. Please do not use the article as a record of every red herring you've chased down in your personal attempts to solve the code. --Michael Snow 19:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fibonacci solution

Who shall credit go to? Or should it just stay "an anonymous Wikipedia user"? --Elonka 01:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London Times? [1] (posted by Ashikaba).

Thanks! I look forward to finding out who gets specific credit. --Elonka 01:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent you an email, Elonka. 158-152-12-77 08:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No orginal research, this article is against wikipedia policy. 203.112.2.212 15:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tool for cracking the code

Can somone please add the external link http://smithycode.wikitimescale.org/

Please follow the link and decide wheater its usefull for this article or not, if you think it's usefull, please add it. It is a tool to crack the code or try to crack the code (since it already has been cracked). Nothing special, but I had a controversy with an admin about another story and he deleted all my external links, including this one which has nothing to do with the original controversy. I am now no longer allowed by this admin to add this link to this article. This admin recommended to write this request into the discussion page and wait for someone other who think it's worthy to add this link. Thank you. Echalone 20:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tags and transfers

Given the notability tag on this article - it can be transfered to [2] if felt more appropriate. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

At * No * Point * does the article even approach the most obvious and most basic question: Why?

Why did the judge feel the need to go to all that trouble, time, etc, when he was meant to be... errr... judging!!!

Just seems rather contextless. Cheers,

_Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]