One can look at the colossus cryptographers as using computer simulations of noi sy quantum processes.

The linearity of the superposition of basis states is similar to the concept of looking at solving certain impulses independently with short wheel runs. The not ion that the Colossus 32-count is the final discriminator is analogous to calcul ating in the Fourier basis. Since folks are approximating spectral maps, the eye is noting when the bulges appear in the right spots and the have the right patt ern. This is the simulation process, with computer operators using counting machin es in 1945 when working with outer products. We also have to recall the ability in quantum mechanics to compute the most prob able solution. Of all the paths one might take in n dimensions of find the maxim um variance per dimension which non the less sums to the maximum overall, one se es the meta-model used by the cryptographer. From this, we can propose that the release of the tunny report had nothing to do with the sudden (re)discovery in the open community of linear or differential c ryptanalysis. It had to do with the emergence of quantum computing in the open. Let's assume NSA has some large colliders tubes at its disposal. If one is able to detect, at the certainty levels required, the emission of certain sub-particles from a density, isn't that equivalent to finding a colossus solution? Doesn't this tell us what a cryptographic computer looks like, in practice? Doesn't it tell you what a modern cryptographer is doing and with what tools? There doesn't seem any reason for a Colossus to be still around in 1960, even for training purposes. Unless it is training in the method itself. That is, you got to use the first quantum simulator as it were before you then go to learn how to t une up a collider search greater spaces with even lower probability of error.