[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: VMs: Pairing [was; No stats no fun ---> no stats no blinkers! :-)]



Barbara Barrett wrote:
>
> The second is where does this leave "stand alone" glyphs that are
> between "words"? These have spaces on either side of them, one of those
> spaces would have to be a "division" of some sort wouldn't they?

Quite so.  Also - what about "words" with odd numbers
of glyphs?

Dennis

 
I'm no cryptologist and this may seem obvious, but what about the idea of some sort of "mixed" substitution used in some stage of encryption.  I'm imaging a process where some letters are represented by multiple glyphs and others by single glyphs.  For a basic example:
 
a=s
c=ii
e=d
h=l
m=a
t=dy
 
"The cat came." would "encrypt" thusly,
 
dyl iisdy iisad
 
Or possibly, certain glyphs would alter the following or related glyph.  For example, my "d" glyph would mean "e", but an "id" glyph would mean (say) "g", an "iid" glyph would mean "f".  Glyphs like "i", and let's say "c" and their frequency could only be an indicator and not a letter in their own right.
 
"Fame at the gate" is encrypted to this:
 
iidsad sdy dyld idsdyd
 
Obviously, this wouldn't explain the VMS so simply.  I just get the impression there is some reason behind the frequent repetition of <e><ch>, and <i> in the text.  Have any of those with the crypto-knowledge already discussed this? 
 
Considering that repetitive <i>s tend to come at the end of words (or more accurately, rarely if ever, at the beginning) and <e>s  rarely, if ever, conclude a word, there would have to be some other rules in play. 
 
Is this just cryptology 101?  Should I just stick to my astronomy?
 
Ken