• conciselyverbose@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Because it’s a giant one.

    There is no valid interpretation of cryptography that resembles the way you defined it in any way.

      • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        That’s a terrible definition, but “codes” is doing the heavy lifting.

        It is not a code, in that definition, if it does not require knowledge of a key to decode.

        It is literally impossible for anything that doesn’t have a secret key to qualify as cryptography. That is the entire defining trait.

        • Call me Lenny/Leni@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          That’s a terrible definition

          How so?

          And what do you think I’ve been talking about this whole time if not forms of substitution?

          • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            The “key” is the mapping of cipher alphabet to message alphabet.

            There has to be a secret to be cryptography. The meaning has to be hidden without the secret information (though primitive/weak attempts can have a small enough search space to be brute forced). But the content being hidden without that information is the entirety of what the word means.