Re: VMs: Re: NSU review of Rugg (2003)...

["Jeff" <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Nick Pelling incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 17 December 2003 19:57
Subject: Re: VMs: Re: NSU review of Rugg (2003)...


> Hi Jeff,
>
> At 18:41 17/12/2003 +0000, Jeff wrote:
> >Gordon is merely using a method along similar lines as mine, although
with
> >the intent of proving a hoax rather than finding a decipherment.
>
> While it's true that the VMs-like *output* of both your approaches are
> similar, aren't your *methodologies* (ie your approaches to the problem)
> different in almost every other respect?
>

I only meant that they both look at the problem from set sequences chained
together. The grille method has the sequences hard coded. My method builds
as it goes.

> Also: isn't there a (big picture) flaw in both approaches? Aren't they
> equivalent to trying to prove English is a hoax by examining computer
poetry?
>

No because I am not trying to prove anything. I simply want to know the
possibilities.

> Or, in logical terms, isn't the implication arrow pointing in the wrong
> direction? That is, if I can write a program that can generate nonsense
> that could pass for Voynichese (and which I can make a better fit by
> increasing the complexity of my model), could that ever mean that all
> Voynichese is nonsense?
>

My model has four and only four rules, and it will only ever have those four
rules. These are simple and to the point. My method cannot accumulate
complexity at all.

> Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....
>


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