Re: Another explanation for dain daiin...

[Nick Pelling <incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.....