Re: VMs: VMS Table

[steve ekwall <ekwall2@xxxxxxxx>]

 Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 21:17:18 +0100
 From: Jeff <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 Reply-To: vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx
 To: vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx
 Subject: VMs: VMS Table
 
 Has anyone ever considered the idea that two VMS characters could represent
 one letter of the native alphabet? So a table would be arranged X by X,
 where X is the number of characters in your constructed alphabet. Rows and
 colums of the plaintext alphabet would be placed in the rows and columns of
 the table at arbitrary positions making sure that every letter is
 represented at least once. The indexes would be the cipher symbol pairs.
 Individual encrypted words could be split into one, two or three sub words
 to disguise the expansion encryption and even make it appear like a
 compression encryption. This would produce three effects. 1) High number of
 unique words.  2) Increased manuscript length. 3) Consistency with the
 analysis performed on the VMS. (This last is a guess, but more like a
 hunch.)
 
 All a decoder would need to know was the positions of the cipher characters
 along the top and down the side of the table. This would make it very easy
 to decipher. The encrypted text would also maintain a consistent language
 structure when analysed as mentioned above.
 
 The tables I have seen used have all had the alphabet across and down the
 table edges as a lookup to the unique cipher character that compresses the
 character pairs. The alternate method would require finding the plaintext
 character at any position it occupies in any row and column and simply
 working outwards to find the two substitution characters. A very simple
 modification of an old idea. This way the character patterns could be kept
 consistent with the appearence of the VMS. The oddball or wierdo glyphs
 could this way be introduced at will as it is a two to one encryption with
 free distribution of the plaintext characters across the grid. One thing
 would definately be consistent using this method and therefore very easy to
 disprove. Each VMS character pair would map to one and only one plaintext
 character. Is this worth pursuing? Anyone have an opinion or got any
 analysis that would kill this one off?
 
 I will be very interested in anyone's opinion.
 
 
------------------------
Hi Jeff :-) 

Well.since.you.asked.anyone, answer = *YES* ThX! :-),

Your " 'oddball' weirdo glyph's do NOT point to an OUTSIDE wheel", but
(using the FOLDING.key) it's more like you keep your "pointer finger:
on the glyph" you're reading/decoding at that moment! (think "INSIDE" 
and GO in/back with the ~Flow~ of the Text (same on code/ DEcode etc.)

1 glyph (can be 2) if "gallowed"
2 glyphs (can be 1) if "pointer_GALLOWED"
2 glyphs (can be 3)  if "gallowed_POINTED TO!" 


1234 - 4321
 

partitions/positions are shown at
"http://www.diac.com/~ekwall2/voynich/voynich2"; - just gallows - sorry 
But one *SEES* positioning of the gallow pointer. The DECODER is not
_ROUND_ but 'SQUARE' (as in a SIMPLE FOLDED piece of PAPER!!!!!!)



*K*i*s*s* 


The Beauty of the vms script 'VISUALLY' (its flowing pen.strokes - yet
stand.a.lone characters) is you "THINK" Flow/script/'ROUNDED' - yet
the key is 'SQUARE' pointed to AREA's on your/its "dial/face" Just a
pointed to area on a Square folded key!

(weird, but seems to _work_ so far (ha.ha))

(ps... & It's OLDER than you think!)

Best to you & yours there
-=se=-
steve (back under my rock) ekwall

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