Re: VMs: Operators

[Rene Zandbergen <r_zandbergen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Jeff,

> [...] As for the alphabet and which glyphs
> represent individual characters, this is totally 
> irrelevant. I know that many people on the list
> would tend to disagree but I have very good reasons
> for coming to this conclusion. The statistics do
> not vary with interpretation. The method does
> not need to know this.

People shouldn't disagree with something they don't
know yet, but at the same time people will not
accept conclusions if they don't know how they
have been reached.

If you want to present something, you should be 
prepared to answer some questions that will 
challenge you. Lots of people have looked at
various different statistics related to the
text: characters, words, vocubulary, long-range
correlations. In recent months there 
haven't been many discussions about quantitative
information. It's been but much more qualitative 
(almost arm-waving) but don't be misled by that.

One big fallacy that you should try to avoid, 
and these are present (IMHO) in the work of Newbold
and Strong, and possibly others, is that you 
should not be looking at a decryption method, but
at an encryption method.

If you take a piece of VMs text, devise a 
decryption method that has 20,000 parameters which
you can choose freely (look-up tables, especially
if you have to change them at every page), then
come up with some 'plain text', which you can then 
interpret as: this could mean 'X' in a combination
of languages 'Y' and 'Z', then you're working 
backwards.

You have to have a plaintext that someone could
have actually spoken or written down, and then 
encrypted in some way that you can describe.

Cheers, Rene 




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list