Difference between revisions of "Talk:Codebusters"
(Created page with "==Modular Arithmetic== Go Person! Wow the page was well made within days! The modular arithmetic is presented a little differently than usual: the [math]\equiv[/math] operato...") |
m (EastStroudsburg13 moved page Talk:Code Busters to Talk:Codebusters: This is officially considered a single word) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
--[[User:Raxu|Raxu]] ([[User talk:Raxu|talk]]) 20:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC) | --[[User:Raxu|Raxu]] ([[User talk:Raxu|talk]]) 20:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | The way I see it is that the equation is then simplified into its proper form in the next step. I feel like making a separate page might be too in-depth for this event, since modular arithmetic is really only needed for the Affine and Hill ciphers. --[[User:Person|Person]] ([[User talk:Person|talk]]) 20:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Um I think one of the links are broken. :P "[[User:TheChiScientist|TheChiScientist]] ([[User talk:TheChiScientist|talk]]) 23:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)" | ||
| + | |||
| + | It would be helpful if you could point out which link is broken. --[[User:Person|Person]] ([[User talk:Person|talk]]) 16:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 02:07, 28 January 2019
Modular Arithmetic
Go Person! Wow the page was well made within days!
The modular arithmetic is presented a little differently than usual: the [math]\equiv[/math] operator is usually used, with statements like [math]29\equiv3\pmod{26}[/math]. This would not fit well in this context because of the definition [math]E(x)=ax+b\bmod{m}[/math].
The current version, however, runs into the trouble that [math] (12a+4b)\bmod{26}=92[/math] is an incorrect statement - the Modulo operation usually gives the smallest nonnegative value that is equivalent.
There is really no easy fix to this problem. The one I'm thinking of is to make a Code Busters/Modular Arithmetic page just for modular arithmetic, so we can go over both definitions and not make the page super long.
--Raxu (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
The way I see it is that the equation is then simplified into its proper form in the next step. I feel like making a separate page might be too in-depth for this event, since modular arithmetic is really only needed for the Affine and Hill ciphers. --Person (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Um I think one of the links are broken. :P "TheChiScientist (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)"
It would be helpful if you could point out which link is broken. --Person (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)