[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: VMs: Ryland 228
>Just a thought: if the VMS is written using a tricky code system, I
infer
>that - because the ideas in the VMS' code don't appear to have entered
the
>code/cipher mainstream - either:
>(a) Everyone involved died without passing the ideas on,
>(b) It's based on an awkward code mechanism that nobody liked much.
>(c) It's based on an awkward methodology that nobody really liked much.
>(d) It's specific to an awkward plaintext, so was of no real use to
anyone
else.
My first ever thoughts about the VMS, based on a read in New Scientist,
were
that it is a hoax. Moreover, because it's a hoax, its designed to *not*
be
deciphered, as that would give the game away. The "Valuable Manuscript
of Ancient
Wisdom and Lore", on decipherment would just turn out to be just a copy
of some
old folk remedies and other books hanging round the library. A King,
having
spent a considerable sum of money on such a book, would not be best
pleased,
and heads would roll. This means theres reason e) to add to Nick's
list...
(e) It's a one-way unbreakable encryption.
This is probably not want we want to hear, as it breaks all hope of ever
deciphering
it, but its certainly a possibility.
Graham.
-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Pelling [mailto:incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, 20 May 2003 13:39
To: vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: VMs: Ryland 228
Hi everyone,
At 01:16 20/05/2003 -0700, Dana Scott wrote:
>Yes, but who cares whether or not it is a hoax? Is that important?
For me, I think the hoaxing line of enquiry is interesting because it
treats the VMS not as a semantic entity, but as a generatively syntactic
entity.
Treating the (apparent) sequence of symbols we see from the point of
view
of its constructional methodology may well yield a parallel set of
insights
not easily accessible from generally semantic paradigms (like "words",
which may well be suspect here).
FWIW, having been looking at a lot of postmodernist and
poststructuralist
papers recently (it's a long story...), I think that
<semantic/syntactic>
may be a dichotomy in need of radical deconstruction. Discuss! :-)
>If it is
>a hoax is it merely as an empty treasure chest or, if authentic, as a
>coffer full of gold? Is the value of the VMS whether or not it is
>identified as a hoax or has it stood fast the test of time and
>therefore become more that a complex knot to be severed in twain at the
>stroke of the sword?
Personally, I think that a definitive proof-of-hoax would need to
demonstrate more than multi-level statistical similarity to the text
(and
an appropriately historically-sound methodology), or else it's merely
correlation, even if the VMS is actually a hoax (ie, all you'd have
proved
is that you can hoax a hoaxed model of a hoax) - I think a "good" hoax
model would need to be strong enough to make predictions about the real
text and its construction that we don't already know (but can confirm).
Just a thought: if the VMS is written using a tricky code system, I
infer
that - because the ideas in the VMS' code don't appear to have entered
the
code/cipher mainstream - either:
(a) Everyone involved died without passing the ideas on,
(b) It's based on an awkward code mechanism that nobody liked much.
(c) It's based on an awkward methodology that nobody really liked much.
(d) It's specific to an awkward plaintext, so was of no real use to
anyone
else.
Within this framework, hoaxing assaults may well help to throw light on
(c).
I happen to think it's likely to turn out to be a combination of (b) and
(c): as a clear example of how this might have worked, polyalphabetic
ciphers' demonstrably better security didn't lead to their being used
much
in practice - but because the theory was elegant and widely printed (and
so
knowledge of it diffused), people became aware of it.
Given the fertile ground 15th Century Northern Italy was for cipher
development, I don't think the idea that a different
extremely-difficult-to-break code should have been invented then (but
that
it didn't spread, perhaps because of the high cost of the printed word)
should be particularly contentious.
In fact, what seems more troubling to people is the idea that someone
500
years ago might be cleverer than them. :-) Personally, I'm happy to tip
my
hat to its creator - but continue the chase. :-)
Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....
______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list
______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list