> I'd also agree that it is too (structurally) complicated for it to be a > *single* cipher from any era - but note that I posit it as a > carefully-constructed compilation of cipher techniques. Its structure would > therefore arise from the *combination* of elements within the system, not > from the innate algorithmic complexity of any single element.
This is what worries me about your approach, Nick. If one considers too many ciphers at once, one introduces too many degrees of freedom and can read anything one wants.
We've seen others go down that path and get nowhere too many times. It's certainly possible in principle. I suppose "carefully-constructed" might be the key word here.
The VMs is so fluently written and there are enough repeated elements that I wonder if the system is really that complicated.
I suppose it's more structured than a pidgin language. It's rather obsessively structured. That is what makes me think of a combinatorial system.
______________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying: unsubscribe vms-list