RE: VMs: RE: Pairing

["GC" <glenclaston@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx]On
> Behalf Of Nick Pelling
> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 5:14 AM
> To: vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: VMs: RE: Pairing
>
>
Nick wrote:

> These kind of digraph counts are still artefacts of a glyph-centric
> transcription - they're adjacency statistics in a (fake) glyph
> transcription. The adjacency statistics of a pair transcription
> would (I'm
> quite sure) indicate a different kind of profile.

"Artefacts"?  "Glyph-centric"?  "(Fake) glyph transcription"?  What?  What?
What?

> Your 37 (1% or more) digraph count corresponds fairly well with the
> approximate size of the pair cipher as observed, but note that they are
> quite different (and fairly unconnected) statistics. There's much more to
> be found here... :-)

Show me.  Let's start with the statistics you used to formulate your
hypothesis.  You did base your hypothesis on measured observation, and not
your measures and observations on your hypothesis, right?  So show me the
numbers that demonstrate that everything else we thought we knew is
misdirected....  I'm a little slow on the uptake I guess, so you'll have to
be really specific.

GC

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