[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: VMs: No stats no fun ---> no stats no blinkers! :-)
Nick Pelling incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote
> Hi Dennis,
> At 12:54 10/08/2003 -0500, Dennis wrote:
> > > Rather, I'm proposing a connected set of hypotheses which (if true)
> > > explain why prior statistical analyses of current transcriptions may
> > > have been taking secondary structural artefacts (ie, those of a
> > > word-game designed to resemble language)
> > My idea, of course, is that it is some sort of a word
> >game. I don't
> >think I've heard this from you before. Would you
> >elaborate for my dense mind?
> Consider the following (badly designed) pair cipher:-
> a b c d e = ba be bi bo bu
> f g h i j = ca ce ci co cu
> k l m n o = da de di do du
> p q r s t = fa fe fi fo fu
> u v w x y = ga ge gi go gu
> z & . , ! = ha he hi ho hu
> --> "Dennis" = "bobudodocofo"
> Whichever way you tried to analyse the individual letters in
> "bobudodocofo", you would get essentially nowhere, no matter how long the
> ciphertext happened to be. Similarly, letter adjacency statistics would
> give you little help (KOKO, anyone?). You would be left with a feeling
> you were looking at a constructed word-game that might (or might not) be
> some form of repetitive language.
> Here's where I suspect we are with the VMS - all our stats are at the
> "b.o.b.u.d.o.d.o.c.o.f.o" context, but until such time as we can read it
> "bo.bu.do.do.co.fo", we'll remain stuck.
> Note that I don't think this alone will be sufficient for us to read the
> VMS - but it should be a gigantic leap forward in the right direction. I
> predict there will be further levels of word-game to trip us up along the
> way, our author is far too smart to make life easy for us!
> Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....
> PS: you might also consider the following: the choice of letters in the
> VMS' alphabet indicates that the author was familiar with multiple
> languages, shorthand, embellished letters (probably from reading legal
> documents?), and possibly even Cistercian numbering systems (as described
> in David A. King's "The Cipher of the Monks"). His intention may have been
> to throw as many red herrings in the air as possible - but they also
> his influences.
> However, if he had designed a very much more geometric alphabet (say,
> consisting purely of boxes), we would have had next to nothing to go on.
> It's possible, then, that his explicit intention was indeed for this to be
> treated as a word-game / word-puzzle and decoded! :-)
A word game in peotry? Perhaps?
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying: