[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Another explanation for dain daiin...

Hi Gabriel,

> On the contrary, this actually reinforces the duplets observation. :-)

How? I don't understand how a "macro" or meta-language command to
copy/repeat words give any clues as the alphabet structure. A bit like saying that
"ditto" or "etcetera" give a clue about the Roman alphabet.

Perhaps I should say: if true, it reinforces the hypothesis that the underlying cipher is verbose.

The problem with verbose ciphers is that, if used alone, they present little resistance to deciphering attacks. For them to be useful, you must give (verbosify) with one hand and take away (compress) with the other, to maintain an overall balance.

Codebooks aside, this may (if true!) be the earliest recorded instance of data-compression.

> I believe that the underlying alphabet is (with a few notable
> exceptions, such as "d" and "y") entirely expressed as duplets.

There may be some <ii>, <ee>, but the "entire alphabet"?
Then "word" sizes would not be words at all and so they could be phonemes or
syllables as suggested in the past -- I can imagine Jacques and Stolfi getting
ready for the pizza :-)

However, as noted many times, the apparent "word size" has a different kind of distribution from the kind of thing you'd expect, even for a syllabic or phonemic code.

But follow the logic through: if you employ a misleading alphabet, then you *have to* reduce the word sizes somehow, or else would-be decoders would see through your alphabet in a trice.

Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....