VMs: Qualitative vs. Quantitative

["GC" <glenclaston@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rene wrote:

Pardon my snip -
> 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.

I am certainly not in disagreement with what you've just said from your
vantage point. It's a very true statement, and worthy of someone who has
invested as much time in the VMS as you have.  But may I add some of my own
views to broaden the scope?

There is a certain freedom involved in qualitative discussion, and as much
as I know the past few months have worn the patience of some, it has
released others from the constraints of "language" statistics, entropy,
etc., and let the creative processes of so many do their work.  At no other
time in recent memory can I say that crypto has been so openly discussed as
the possible source for the VMS.  This might be unwelcome to some, and they
may wish to sit this time out, as others sat out the intensive language
discussions that took place in the past.  This list appears to have a
pendulum swing, and eventually what was once in vogue will regain its place.

Jim Gillogly's new site and recent publicity has opened access to this forum
to a larger group of people, a group with a greater variance of background
than was once present.  This means that the "qualitative" discussion will go
on for a long time, as new people pop in and out of the list.  This doesn't
mean that you, I, or any of the constant members have forgotten the
"quantitative" aspects of the VMS, or that we've dismissed statistics and
their study from our repertoire.  It is a fact that the "quantitative" is
brought up repeatedly to counter one "qualitative" argument or another.
This is as it should be in an open forum with varying degrees of
understanding.

The question from a "qualitative" viewpoint should be, "Have we anything new
to quantify?"  Quantification is dependent on qualitative analysis, IMHO.
Apples, oranges, and "fat bottomed" pears are qualitative assessments,
necessary before quantifying.  New qualitative ways of looking at the same
old trap bring to light new questions, and new questions beg for
quantitative answers.  BOG ZNAET we've certainly quantified the heck out of
the VMS, but if you haven't yet reached a workable qualitative analytical
conclusion in summation of all your quantities, you simply haven't asked the
right "qualitative" questions as yet.

All this is not to say we should ignore the statistics that have been
gleaned from the VMS.  We should embrace them and attempt to ascertain a
"qualitative" view that encompasses these statistics, and any view espoused
that does not consider these solid values cannot hold water.  I'm just
saying that unless one has the answer, a little "qualitative" banter
certainly can't do any harm.  As a mental stimulant, it can actually do a
mind good.

As for "arm waving", when the entire audience is waving their arms, who
notices or cares?  This "hey, over here" is much preferred, in my opinion,
to the "domination" of past interests.  Some might say that all this arm
waving and qualitative speculation is not "scientific", and in the purest
sense I would agree.  One should formulate opinion through quantitative
analysis, or so Francis Bacon presumed as a standard.  In fact, the average
scientific mind formulates a qualitative opinion, and then attempts to
express that in quantitative terms, the opposite of Bacon's ideal.  So
Bacon's "New Atlantis" has yet to become reality, what can I say?  We're all
still human.

Matt mentioned to me just a few days ago that some of the members were using
"similar distant logic", a qualitative observation that has quantifiable
substance.  I guess qualitative has some quantifiable benefits after all?

Peace....
GC








> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx]On
> Behalf Of Rene Zandbergen
> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 2:58 AM
> To: vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: VMs: Operators
>
>
> 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

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