Re: U-Boat Enigma procedure(Long)
From: Jim Gillogly (jim_at_acm.org)
Date: 07/26/03
- Next message: John E. Hadstate: "Re: Surviving Einstein."
- Previous message: kurt wismer: "Re: Checking a foolproof algorithm."
- In reply to: Dan Girard: "Re: U-Boat Enigma procedure(Long)"
- Next in thread: JohnTromaville: "Re: U-Boat Enigma procedure"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 19:13:59 GMT
Dan Girard wrote:
> I'm curious as to just how much better the upgraded version performs
> compared to the version described in your paper. How much text would
> each have to have in order to have a good chance of solving a 3-rotor
> message with ten plugboard connections? For a message as long as the
> maximum allowed in the German navy, how many plugs could each version
> handle and still have a good chance of success?
I haven't checked with the kind of rigor I used in my paper. The
main improvement is that it does a generalized hill-climbing across
the range of settings, rather than focussing on one setting at a time.
If it reaches a local maximum, it starts again from another random
starting point -- what I call "shotgun hillclimbing". It's an
improvement because it's a strict superset of the work I described.
In a sense it's less interesting, because it uses more computational
power than the hottest machine of the day (which I assume was the
Zuse Z-3) had available.
I ought to run the data you suggest, though. After a number of other
projects!
> Could the updated version solve a four-rotor message if the rotor
> order and ring-settings were known, but not the plugs or the message
> key? I'm wondering how I would proceed if my program were to give me
> a "possible solution" that started out something like
> "VONVONBDUUUXOFFIZIERDORA..." and then became unintelligible (highly
> unlikely, but not impossible).
Anything that's known is a big help, and narrowing down these two
variables would definitely give a leg up. Again, I've tried it only
on a few data points.
-- Jim Gillogly Mersday, 3 Wedmath S.R. 2003, 19:09 12.19.10.8.2, 11 Ik 10 Xul, Ninth Lord of Night
- Next message: John E. Hadstate: "Re: Surviving Einstein."
- Previous message: kurt wismer: "Re: Checking a foolproof algorithm."
- In reply to: Dan Girard: "Re: U-Boat Enigma procedure(Long)"
- Next in thread: JohnTromaville: "Re: U-Boat Enigma procedure"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|