Re: VMs: Can one "prove" a hoax?

[Nick Pelling <incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi everyone,

At 18:43 20/02/03 -0400, Luis Vélez wrote:
> 1) The first rule is that a cipher system must have rules; to use such
> devices one must methodically follow the rules. A cipher unit (the
> "cipher-text") is formed of one letter of the alphabet, and it must
> correspond to another letter in the deciphered text (the "plaintext").

All of the "4" / "4o" ciphers found so far (dating 1440-1465) would fail 
this test, as individual cipher units there are often formed of *two* 
letters from the cipherbet.

By the same token (sorry), surely Bacon's bilterarie (binary) cipher would 
similarly fail this test?

I've said for a while that I think a major mechanism of the VMS' cipher 
will turn out to be comprised of paired letters and deceptively inserted 
spaces, which (even alone) would throw a lot of statistical tests into a 
spin... but all's fair in love and steganography, right? :-)

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

______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list