clearly indicated by the unmistakable appearance of, say a 99999 (the maximum length) or a 66666. Aside from being vulnerable to the usual techniques of frequency analysis, the cipher would often mirror the telltale repeated-letter pattern of an underlying plaintext word, such as attack or division, that had fallen entirely within a single encipherment group and so had been monoalphabetically enciphered. Such a system does not interpose insuperable difficulties to the cryptanalyst, especially when, as with the Russians, it was poorly used, often with intermixture of plaintext. Mixed text was soon prohibited, but by then it was too late. For the brilliant young Captain Hermann Pokorny, head of the Russian subsection of the Austro-Hungarian Dechif-frierdienst, had cracked the system and reconstructed all its alphabets by September 19. His first important solution, on September 25, disclosed General Novikov's lengthy
S. President was a Panther. You are not imagining a world in which a Black Panther is President of the US. But what of Russell's spot-check argument? In response to "Whom do you mean by `Lili Boulanger'/`Wilfrid Sellars'?" you promptly cough up a description or cluster of descriptions. Likewise Searle's appeal to teaching and learning: They also proceed by equating the name in question with a description or cluster. These facts seem undeniable and insuperable. In response, Kripke introduced an important distinction. Russell and Searle had both assumed that, if a name has a description or cluster associated with it in the ways they have respectively pointed out, then the name must share the meaning of that descriptive material (from now on I shall say just "description" for short). But this assumption is unwarranted, because there is a weaker relation that the description might bear to the name and still explain
annaabi.ee 
