VMs: RE: VMS numbering systems hypotheses...

[Nick Pelling <incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi GC,

> Nick, I'm following this conversation with interest.  I too have
> my reservations, but find some of it very intuitive.  One thing
> that's obvious is that when we both speak of "weakness" being in
> the numbers, we're not speaking of the same thing, something that
> has to do with our variant angles of approach.

May I ask what you consider the weakness to be?

> If you would, can you relate your theory to the "17" pattern we
> see in the strings of 57v and 66r?  What is the reason these
> strings are present in multiples of 17, and why does this number
> pattern rear its ugly head in a few of the other drawings?

I've tried to understand f57v from many different angles: the overt 
similarities to volvelles & nocturnelles are strong, but the covert 
similarities to magic circles are just as strong.

I recently had the chance of examining the magic circle on the first page 
of Sloane MS 3556, to try to settle in my mind which "side of the line" I 
think the VMS falls - it has several concentric circles of text: but I 
simply don't know, it's just too close to call. Perhaps that's the point of 
it. :-)

Similarly, I don't have an explanation for the periodicity: I would only 
point out that many other numerical patterns can be read into the VMS - 
study of its numerological patterns may well eventually yield some kind of 
answer (though this seems a little hard to believe, after all this time), 
but that kind of research isn't really playing to my strengths, so perhaps 
I should leace it to others. :-)

I can only suggest that perhaps some of the 17 characters used there are in 
fact simply nulls, put in to misdirect our eyes from the *real* pattern. :-/

> Also, as to the dain, daiin, etc. being numerical equivalents in a
> code/versus cipher, I can't argue with that assumption, but I do
> note that in the string present in 66r, the classic picnic table
> appears just before an EVA compound, which I write as a single
> character, but may be written as three characters in EVA.  The
> locations of the picnic table as a character tend to make me think
> that it is a number as opposed to the other alphabetic characters.

Given the small size of frequent characters in the VMS' cipherbet, I'm not 
100% comfortable with any reading of it that allocates certain characters 
specifically to numbers or letters - a Roman-numerals-kind-of-answer seems 
much more likely to me, where characters perform "double duty".

For example, my "hanging letters" reading of the gallows doesn't explain 
the precise choice of loops: these too may have other, parallel stories to 
tell, & may - given a different accompanying spoken mnemonic - represent 
other letters as well, rather than purely "xx" or "xxx".

In fact, that's probably my biggest insight into the gallows: I think they 
represent an *aural code* - similar to meru, in that they *capture* a 
spoken group of letters, rather than *representing* them.

This would be both a very *medieval* and a very *magical* way of 
thinking... interesting! :-)

> Several 0f the characters in 57v also suggest numerical
> equivalents, mostly by their position and their rarity.  In fact,
> where we would expect numbers versus text in 57v, new characters
> are actually introduced that had previously appeared nowhere in
> the manuscript.

They could always be nulls - I really wouldn't put it past the encoder to 
do that to us. :-)

> I need to ask - if the system you're proposing is based on a
> number code, and as such the particular character has a dual
> equivalent of character/code and number, why was it necessary to
> introduce new characters to write numbers?  (I am of course
> relying heavily on my own peculiar assumptions here).  To me this
> evidence doesn't suggest what you're suggesting.

I think that the function of the VMS is to encode a library of older, 
rarer, external texts "as-is"... and those texts would probably have 
represented numbers as Roman numerals. To maintain that "as-is"-ness, a way 
would therefore need to be devised to *hide* those Roman numerals, 
especially given that I also believe that this was in pre-polyalphabetic times.

As Roman numerals would have been next to useless in a cipher, my 
prediction is that finding a way of hiding numbers might well have been the 
*core* of the encoding system, with other parts built up around it 
(probably in layers). As has been noted many times, the VMS does give the 
impression of a *mature* coding system... though that may be part of its 
deception, who knows? :-)

> On a note more true to my own investigation, I would point out
> that these strings are very telling as to character
> identification.  We would agree that the majority of the
> characters are stand-alones, and in the face of this overwhelming
> fact, it is prudent to discern that the "compound" characters
> presented in such strings are also "stand-alones", or units of
> communication.  This is why my character set is not quite what is
> presented in the EVA, and why I have called for an overhaul of the
> transcription system.  By doing so I realize I'm falling directly
> into Nick's argument that the "4o" is a single character, but I
> think statistically we'd then have to say that "89" and "oe" were
> stand-alones, a step I'm still not willing to take.

The reason that we all disagree on transcription is that we're all 
concentrating on the form and shape of the letters and their combinations, 
rather than trying to identify *what kind of content* the encoder was 
trying to hide, and *what techniques were available to that person*.

The former is falling into the encoder's trap - we should strive to 
*psychologically* break the code, to see through the layers of 
*misdirection* that are there to deceive our eyes, by understanding the 
likely content & how it *could* be encoded *using available techniques*.

If we can only understand something so atomic as numbers in the VMS, then 
we stand a real chance of seeing into this person's mind across the 
centuries, if only for a moment. :-)

> Whatever the road this investigation takes, we must eventually
> resolve the problem of character identification, as well as the
> problem of when and where certain characters appear.  I am hoping
> you have some theoretical answers to this problem of number/code
> versus number in the text.

I have no answers - just a process and a belief.

The *process* is that trying to break the code forward rather than backward 
will, ultimately, be more productive.

The *belief* is that hidden somewhere in the text is something put there by 
other than pure rationality and cunning - perhaps out of vanity, ennui, 
artistry, poetry, or even necessity... an exposed edge that might open up 
some kind of narrow window into the text for us.

For example: when I understood the history of vinci, I thought (for one 
brief, wonderful moment) that I had caught sight of Leonardo, snared in his 
own loops, "hung by his own gallows" characters - well, maybe I did, maybe 
I didn't. Regardless, the VMS is certainly a puzzle worthy of his 
reputation! :-)

Best regards, .....Nick Pelling.....