Enigma Decipher
Polish Mathematics
Rotating Rotors and Plugboards, which started before Turing, changed the same letter to different letters each time. Enigma created a huge number of cases, but the structure of the machine and the habits of the operator were not complete.
Enigma did not collapse due to a pure investigation. Structures in which machines do not turn letters into themselves, repeated military phrases, human procedural mistakes, and the sharing of alliance knowledge reduced the search space every day.
Prologue: Recorded Night
After the night deepens, the data was spread on the desk. The first thing that caught my eye was not the answer, but the imbalance. Some scenes were as clear as photographs and some time zones were empty as a whole. People try to capture one clear scene and explain the whole thing, but I marked the empty section first. Mysteries arise because there are many clues, but they also arise because the distance between clues is too far.
Marian Rejewski and colleagues from the Polish cryptography bureau analyzed early military enigma with mathematics in the 1930s and shared machines and methods with France and Britain. On this foundation, Bletchley Park combined Turing and Welchman's Bomb with vast manpower to track the height that changes every day.
I deliberately read the famous hypothesis at the end. First of all, when we encounter the conclusion, it seems that all objects and symbols exist for that conclusion. Therefore, the timetable, place, object, and original text were organized first, and the witness and interpretation were placed in different compartments. The novel-like atmosphere was drawn from the cold texture of the actual record, not from a made-up secret.
Case File: What I Could Believe
20313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950515253545556| Number | Confirmed Record | Current Reliability |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Enigma performed multiple substitutions with rotors, reflectors, and plugboards. | High |
| 2 | Polish cryptographer Marian Rejewski mathematically restored the early military enigma structure in the 1930s. | High |
| 3 | Poland shared related methods and equipment with France and Britain just before the war. | High |
| 4 | Bletchley Park quickly removed daily key candidates using Crib and Bomb. | Medium |
| 5 | The success of decoding was a continuous process of equipment harvesting, operation mistakes, wiretapping, translation, and analysis. | Medium |
The Enigma decryption process has been sufficiently confirmed historically, and the magnitude of the contribution and impact of each detailed operation continues to be studied.
'Unexplained' is not the same as 'supernatural', 'a huge conspiracy', and 'only this hypothesis is possible'. I didn't count the blanks as evidence.
Scene Reconstruction: Finally, the place of the certain point
was changed to the actual movement, not the stage in your head. We divided the starting point, the last check point, and the location where the item was found and calculated the minimum time required in between. When the dramatic description of later generations was removed, small and specific elements such as sound and lighting, doors and roads, paper and ink, and the spacing of symbols came forward.
The person's mind was not fixed and the action was written first. The same behavior can be caused by fear, planning, error, and fatigue. If it is a code, the same symbol can be a sound, a word, a separator, and a meaningless sign. After writing down all possible roles, he erased the roles that conflict with other records one by one.
Clue 1. Enigma performed multiple substitutions with a rotor, reflector, and plugboard.
I split this sentence into three pieces first. It indicated who first checked, how close the confirmation was to the incident, and where the later interpretation was attached. Old events and codes turn into clearer stories than the original while being repeatedly cited. But clarity is not the same thing as accuracy. In my notes, I separated the direct record, the traces left by the object, and the reasoning of later generations into different colors.
This clue then confronted the record, "Polish cryptographer Marian Rejewski mathematically restored the early military enigma structure in the 1930s." It is not a good hypothesis if one hypothesis explains only the first sentence and avoids the second sentence. In particular, if you fail to pass the question, "Even if the number of cases is large, how much is reduced if there is a structural ban?" the attractive explanation also lowered the score. I've seen clues that make the conclusion uncomfortable longer than clues that make the conclusion cool.
If you look at the clues this way, the case seems a little less dramatic. Instead, there is a boundary between how far it is clear and where it is imagined. That boundary is necessary to correct reasoning when new data are released. The most dangerous moment in the unwritten record is not when you make a false hypothesis, but when you turn the hypothesis into a sentence of fact.
Clue 2. Polish cryptographer Marian Rejewski mathematically restored the early military enigma structure in the 1930s.
I split this sentence into three pieces first. It indicated who first checked, how close the confirmation was to the incident, and where the later interpretation was attached. Old events and codes turn into clearer stories than the original while being repeatedly cited. But clarity is not the same thing as accuracy. In my notes, I separated the direct record, the traces left by the object, and the reasoning of later generations into different colors.
This clue was then confronted with the record that "Poland shared relevant methods and equipment with France and Britain just before the war." It is not a good hypothesis if one hypothesis explains only the first sentence and avoids the second sentence. In particular, if you fail to pass the question, "Can you find a daily key only with the operator's habit without a hijacking codebook?" the attractive explanation also lowered the score. I've seen clues that make the conclusion uncomfortable longer than clues that make the conclusion cool.
If you look at the clues this way, the case seems a little less dramatic. Instead, there is a boundary between how far it is clear and where it is imagined. That boundary is necessary to correct reasoning when new data are released. The most dangerous moment in the unwritten record is not when you make a false hypothesis, but when you turn the hypothesis into a sentence of fact.
Clue 3. Poland shared relevant methods and equipment with France and Britain just before the war.
I split this sentence into three pieces first. It indicated who first checked, how close the confirmation was to the incident, and where the later interpretation was attached. Old events and codes turn into clearer stories than the original while being repeatedly cited. But clarity is not the same thing as accuracy. In my notes, I separated the direct record, the traces left by the object, and the reasoning of later generations into different colors.
The clue was then matched with the record, "Bletchley Park quickly removed the daily key candidate using Crib and Bomb." It is not a good hypothesis if one hypothesis explains only the first sentence and avoids the second sentence. In particular, if you fail to pass the question, "What were the criteria for using military action by hiding the facts of deciphering?" the attractive explanation also lowered the score. I've seen clues that make the conclusion uncomfortable longer than clues that make the conclusion cool.
If you look at the clues this way, the case seems a little less dramatic. Instead, there is a boundary between how far it is clear and where it is imagined. That boundary is necessary to correct reasoning when new data are released. The most dangerous moment in the unwritten record is not when you make a false hypothesis, but when you turn the hypothesis into a sentence of fact.
Clue 4. Bletchley Park used Crib and Bomb to quickly remove daily key candidates.
I split this sentence into three pieces first. It indicated who first checked, how close the confirmation was to the incident, and where the later interpretation was attached. Old events and codes turn into clearer stories than the original while being repeatedly cited. But clarity is not the same thing as accuracy. In my notes, I separated the direct record, the traces left by the object, and the reasoning of later generations into different colors.
Then, this clue was confronted with the record, "The success of deciphering was a continuous process of equipment harvesting, operation mistakes, wiretapping, translation, and analysis." It is not a good hypothesis if one hypothesis explains only the first sentence and avoids the second sentence. In particular, if you fail to pass the question, "Even if the number of cases is large, how much is reduced if there is a structural ban?" the attractive explanation also lowered the score. I've seen clues that make the conclusion uncomfortable longer than clues that make the conclusion cool.
If you look at the clues this way, the case seems a little less dramatic. Instead, there is a boundary between how far it is clear and where it is imagined. That boundary is necessary to correct reasoning when new data are released. The most dangerous moment in the unwritten record is not when you make a false hypothesis, but when you turn the hypothesis into a sentence of fact.
Clue 5. Successful decoding was a continuous process of equipment harvesting, operation mistakes, interception, translation, and analysis.
I split this sentence into three pieces first. It indicated who first checked, how close the confirmation was to the incident, and where the later interpretation was attached. Old events and codes turn into clearer stories than the original while being repeatedly cited. But clarity is not the same thing as accuracy. In my notes, I separated the direct record, the traces left by the object, and the reasoning of later generations into different colors.
This clue was then matched with the record that "Enigma performed multiple substitutions with rotors, reflectors, and plugboards." It is not a good hypothesis if one hypothesis explains only the first sentence and avoids the second sentence. In particular, if you fail to pass the question, "Can you find a daily key only with the operator's habit without a hijacking codebook?" the attractive explanation also lowered the score. I've seen clues that make the conclusion uncomfortable longer than clues that make the conclusion cool.
If you look at the clues this way, the case seems a little less dramatic. Instead, there is a boundary between how far it is clear and where it is imagined. That boundary is necessary to correct reasoning when new data are released. The most dangerous moment in the unwritten record is not when you make a false hypothesis, but when you turn the hypothesis into a sentence of fact.
Put three hypotheses on the same scale The
hypothesis was not evaluated as a cool sentence. The number of clues to be explained, the number of newly requested assumptions, and the degree to which they endure the opposite evidence were written, respectively. Even if one clue is fully explained, it is not a good hypothesis if the other records have to be discarded.
Hypothesis A. The nature of letters not being encrypted by themselves because of the reflector is used for creep verification.
This explanation has the advantage of accepting "Enigma performed multiple substitutions with rotors, reflectors, and plugboards" as a relatively small assumption. I assumed that this hypothesis was correct and walked time and space all over again. Each time people, objects, and symbols moved to the next location, they wrote down the actions and times they needed. There must have been a hidden assumption at the point where the sentence was cut off.
The biggest weakness is that it does not fully explain "Poland shared relevant methods and equipment with France and Britain just before the war." If you keep adding accomplices, coincidences, and lost things to keep the hypothesis alive, you can explain anything. However, such an explanation does not predict new clues. I only scored when two independent records pointed in the same direction, and I scored every time I called in a new exception.
117100118So, whether or not to adopt this hypothesis as a conclusion was judged not by atmosphere but by cost. The number of clues to be explained, the number of newly requested households, and the degree to which they endure evidence against them are listed in the same table. Novel scenes were used to show the texture of facts, but not as evidence to fill in the blanks.
119101120Hypothesis B. Arrange expected plaintexts and ciphertexts to remove impossible rotor settings with a bomb.
121102122This explanation has the advantage of accepting "Polish cryptographer Marian Rejewski mathematically restored the structure of military enigma in the early 1930s" as a relatively small assumption. I assumed that this hypothesis was correct and walked time and space all over again. Each time people, objects, and symbols moved to the next location, they wrote down the actions and times they needed. There must have been a hidden assumption at the point where the sentence was cut off.
123103124The biggest weakness is that "Bletchley Park quickly removed daily key candidates using Crib and Bomb." If you keep adding accomplices, coincidences, and lost things to keep the hypothesis alive, you can explain anything. However, such an explanation does not predict new clues. I only scored when two independent records pointed in the same direction, and I scored every time I called in a new exception.
125104126So, whether or not to adopt this hypothesis as a conclusion was judged not by atmosphere but by cost. The number of clues to be explained, the number of newly requested households, and the degree to which they endure evidence against them are listed in the same table. Novel scenes were used to show the texture of facts, but not as evidence to fill in the blanks.
127105128Hypothesis C. The permutation analysis of Poland and the large-scale operation of the United Kingdom are viewed as one continuous decoding system.
129106130This explanation has the advantage of accepting "Poland shared relevant methods and equipment with France and Britain just before the war" as a relatively small assumption. I assumed that this hypothesis was correct and walked time and space all over again. Each time people, objects, and symbols moved to the next location, they wrote down the actions and times they needed. There must have been a hidden assumption at the point where the sentence was cut off.
131107132The biggest weakness is that it does not fully explain "the success of decryption was a continuous process of equipment harvesting, operation mistakes, wiretapping, translation, and analysis." If you keep adding accomplices, coincidences, and lost things to keep the hypothesis alive, you can explain anything. However, such an explanation does not predict new clues. I only scored when two independent records pointed in the same direction, and I scored every time I called in a new exception.
133108134So, whether or not to adopt this hypothesis as a conclusion was judged not by atmosphere but by cost. The number of clues to be explained, the number of newly requested households, and the degree to which they endure evidence against them are listed in the same table. Novel scenes were used to show the texture of facts, but not as evidence to fill in the blanks.
Conclusions I abandoned
137111138When I started the investigation, I was also drawn to the most famous explanation. It organized the case into one sentence and gave intention to everything. However, in contrast to the original record, each blank required a new coincidence. I erased the conclusion then and started again. Good reasoning is not about adding anything, but about removing unnecessary assumptions.
139112140I threw away the picture of one person 'breaking' the machine like a scene in the movie. The actual deciphering was close to a factory where Polish mathematics, French information, British design, operations of thousands of people, and maritime fishing were intertwined. Even if the number of
141113142In particular, the details repeated on later articles and the Internet were separated from the source. Just because the same sentence appears in multiple places does not mean that there are multiple independent sources. We first checked the possibility that one error was duplicated. After this process, the case became less colorful, but the weight of the remaining clues increased.
Anti-evidence: Sentence to destroy my reasoning
145116146The investigation ends quickly if I gather data that upholds my conclusion. So I put the three most uncomfortable questions next to the conclusion.
147117148- cases is large, how much is reduced if there is a structural ban? 150119151
- Can daily keys be found only by the operator's habit without the North Korean Orphan Codebook? 152120153
- What were the criteria for hiding the decryption and using it for military action?
These questions are not decorative. It is a switch that will change its conclusion when new data comes in. The ranking of the hypotheses changes immediately when directly linked information, such as the sighting source, preserved physical evidence, comparative samples from the same author, and independent dating. On the contrary, when the word "likely" increased, the ranking did not change.
Final Reasoning: I Reached
159125160Enigma did not collapse due to a pure investigation. Structures in which machines do not turn letters into themselves, repeated military phrases, human procedural mistakes, and the sharing of alliance knowledge reduced the search space every day.
This conclusion is not a complete final judgment. The direction calls for the fewest assumptions in the currently disclosed records and explains the most clues at the same time. It is also clear that what comes out changes the conclusion. Reliable original records, verifiable legal science data, and independent evidence directly linking people and objects are needed.
163127164I do not write that the case is closed. Instead, write down how far you can close it. That boundary is the result of this investigation. The fun of mystery is not that anything is possible. It's about finding out what you can throw away among the possible explanations.
Additional Survey Record 1. Redraw the timetable
167130168Re-expanding the data on the desk, this time covering the conclusion. Enigma carried out multiple substitutions with rotors, reflectors, and plugboards, leaving only "enigma" and the place and time in one line. Unconfirmed sections were not filled by imagination but marked with blank squares. The larger the square, the lower the reliability of the hypothesis to pass through the section.
169131170On top of it, I posted an explanation, "The nature of letters not being encrypted by themselves because of the reflector is used for creep verification." At first, everything seemed to be right, but when I substituted the question, "How much less if there is a structural ban even if the number of cases is large?" a weak connection was revealed. Hypothesis has to endure the question. If you keep making new coincidences to avoid questions, you will create, not reasoning, from that moment on.
171132172The results obtained in this section are not confirmed criminals or complete plain texts. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions, and what would flip the ranking if found. Even if the case is not completed, the scope of the investigation can be narrowed. This record is intended to leave that very narrow boundary.
173133174Further investigation record 2. Disappeared link
175134176Re-expanded the data on the desk and covered the conclusion this time. "Polish cryptographer Marian Reyevsky mathematically restored the structure of the early military enigma in the 1930s," he continued with a line of place and time. Unconfirmed sections were not filled by imagination but marked with blank squares. The larger the square, the lower the reliability of the hypothesis to pass through the section.
177135178On top of it, I posted the explanation, "By aligning the expected plaintext and ciphertext, remove the impossible rotor setting with a bomb." At first, everything seemed to be right, but when I substituted the question, "Can I find a daily key only with the operator's habit without a hijacking codebook?" a weak connection was revealed. Hypothesis has to endure the question. If you keep making new coincidences to avoid questions, you will create, not reasoning, from that moment on.
179136180The results obtained in this section are not confirmed criminals or complete plain texts. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions, and what would flip the ranking if found. Even if the case is not completed, the scope of the investigation can be narrowed. This record is intended to leave that very narrow boundary.
181137182Further investigation record 3. The path of movement of objects
183138184Re-expanded the data on the desk and covered the conclusion this time. "Poland shared relevant methods and equipment to France and Britain just before the war," he continued, leaving only one line of place and time. Unconfirmed sections were not filled by imagination but marked with blank squares. The larger the square, the lower the reliability of the hypothesis to pass through the section.
185139186On top of it, I posted an explanation that "Poland's permutation analysis and the large-scale operation of the UK are viewed as a continuous decoding system." At first, everything seemed to be right, but a weak connection was revealed when the question "What were the criteria for using the facts of deciphering and using them for military action?" was substituted. Hypothesis has to endure the question. If you keep making new coincidences to avoid questions, you will create, not reasoning, from that moment on.
187140188The results obtained in this section are not confirmed criminals or complete plain texts. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions, and what would flip the ranking if found. Even if the case is not completed, the scope of the investigation can be narrowed. This record is intended to leave that very narrow boundary.
189141190Further Survey Record 4. Opposite Hypothesis Night
191142192I re-opened the material on the desk and covered the conclusion this time. "Bletchley Park quickly removed the daily key candidate using Crib and Bomb."The place and the time were lined up, leaving only one behind. Unconfirmed sections were not filled by imagination but marked with blank squares. The larger the square, the lower the reliability of the hypothesis to pass through the section.
193143194On top of it, I posted an explanation, "The nature of letters not being encrypted by themselves because of the reflector is used for creep verification." At first, everything seemed to be right, but when I substituted the question, "How much less if there is a structural ban even if the number of cases is large?" a weak connection was revealed. Hypothesis has to endure the question. If you keep making new coincidences to avoid questions, you will create, not reasoning, from that moment on.
195144196The results obtained in this section are not confirmed criminals or complete plain texts. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions, and what would flip the ranking if found. Even if the case is not completed, the scope of the investigation can be narrowed. This record is intended to leave that very narrow boundary.
197145198Further Survey Record 5. Distance between record and memory
199146200I re-opened the material on the desk and covered the conclusion this time. "The success of deciphering was a continuous process of equipment harvesting, operation mistakes, wiretapping, translation, and analysis." The location and time were continued in one line. Unconfirmed sections were not filled by imagination but marked with blank squares. The larger the square, the lower the reliability of the hypothesis to pass through the section.
201147202On top of it, I posted the explanation, "By aligning the expected plaintext and ciphertext, remove the impossible rotor setting with a bomb." At first, everything seemed to be right, but when I substituted the question, "Can I find a daily key only with the operator's habit without a hijacking codebook?" a weak connection was revealed. Hypothesis has to endure the question. If you keep making new coincidences to avoid questions, you will create, not reasoning, from that moment on.
203148204The results obtained in this section are not confirmed criminals or complete plain texts. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions, and what would flip the ranking if found. Even if the case is not completed, the scope of the investigation can be narrowed. This record is intended to leave that very narrow boundary.
· GCHQ — codebreakers and the Battle of Britain
208152209· CIA — who first cracked Enigma
210153211· Historic England — Block C, Bletchley Park
212154213※ This article is a commentary in the form of personal survey records based on public records and reliable data. I have distinguished between confirmed facts and my reasoning, and I update my judgment when a new official announcement is made. External material images were edited for some color and composition according to the permitted licensing conditions, and each image source was shown in the caption.