Re: VMs: Ryland 228

["DANA SCOTT" <dscott520@xxxxxxx>]

Also well put, it is the truth about the content of the VMS, both semantic
and syntactic that is important, however it may have been constructed that
is important. I would not want to belabor the "hoax" issue for too long,
just stick to the facts and enjoy any new revelations which may be
discovered. I imagine that given enough insight into the details a good
portion of the truth will ferret out, even if we can't see directly into the
mind of the VMS scribe, but then again, who knows what more we may find.
Both paths down the road (hoax/authentic) are of great interest, though
"proving" that the VMS is a hoax may be more complex. As I recall was
previously stated, the text may have been the enciphering of a known
language, though the ultimate story to be told may be bogus nonsense which I
would think equally places it in the realm of a hoax, albeit perhaps an
elegant hoax. Enough said.

Regards,
Dana Scott


----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Pelling" <incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 5:39 AM
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