[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re: Re: VMs: Further investigatio of folio f1r
I think we have all done character frequency counts on various languages and compared them to the Voy. That is one of the most frustrating things about the manuscript - the frequency counts mirror actual languages very well. That is, they are not out of the ordinary.
This tends to draw the newer Voy researchers into the inevitable conclusion that it is a simple single-substitution cipher. And, yet, that is when the insanity begins. You always feel that if you just got the right substitution down you could easily solve it. And, believe me, I have tried.
So you then begin to look at more complicated encryption schemes. Rotating keys, multiple table substitutions, etc. But the thing is, the more complicated the encryption scheme you get the more the character frequency statistics that should be produced look less and less like a natural language (and very un-Voy-like).
Once that is realized the only solutions are: 1) a real genius did this and they were able to come up with a complicated scheme that mirrors the statistics and "feel" of a natural language, 2) the Voy is in a made up language, 3) it is a fabulously manufactured document [ie hoax] or 4) we just have not tried the right character replacement scheme yet.
I, personally, vacillate between 1 and 2.
Unfortunately, real-world work has slowed me down recently, but my next move was going to be to look at the Voy from a "word" standpoint. That is, if it is a single substitution cipher or some kind of made up language, certain words should be evident. "The", "Of", "And", "Or", "It"...for example. Voy "ol" is a good candidate for one of those. "daiin" another. "al" and "or" others. I figure that once those kinds of words were identified it might lead to determining the best way to decrypt the rest of the text.
But then, I am fairly certain that is as blind of an alley as any other....as far as I know, "ol" stands for "and" in one place and "repository" in another. In that case we may never figure this out.
******************************
Larry Roux
Syracuse University
lroux@xxxxxxx
*******************************
>>> knoxmix@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 04/06/04 23:19 PM >>>
Hello Jan,
I enjoy reading at your website and your commentary on the list.
I would like to address a few of the issues of your latest message
and I will set off my remarks between dashed lines.
From: "Jan" <hurychj@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: VMs: Further investigatio of folio f1r
Date sent: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 18:31:10 -0500
--- Come to think of it, our different tools are mostly telling
us what the VM cannot be, which is of course some help too, while on
the other hand there are not too many tools that can help us to get
closer to the solution, not mentioning the fact we are running out of
possibilities. Well, it does not look like, judging by the traffic
of this conference :-), but truly, the best linguists and
cryptographers so far failed mainly because we have here three
unknown variables: the script, the language and possibly the coding.
Is there any way out which would help us to establish at least one
of those three?
--- Now let's get into the mind of the author, who - one thing we are
all almost positive about - wanted to conceal the text, that is the
content of the text (that applies even for the hoax :-). He didn't
care that it looked strange or maybe he wanted it to look strange :-
)? Hardly, unless it was a hoax. That's why I do not think Roger
Bacon Bacon wrote it: he already had enough problems with his
superiors and strange script would certainly attract the unwanted
attention, not talking about those naked women :-). Bein g
intelligent, he would probably choose something less conspicuous, say
like Francis Bacon binary cipher with steganography.
--- But why would the author use strange script (or we should call
it rather "scripting", since we do not know if it is one-to-one thing
:-) AND strrange language AND maybe even cipher? The most
questionable is the use of rather strange natural language, unless it
was his own. As far as artificial language, I do not see any point
there: who else could be then able to read it? It would be like the
whole unknown code-book. So it is highly possible that the language
USED was the one known to author and probably even to us. Again, the
linguists cannot establish what language it was because none did fit
so far. Neither can cryptographers establish the cipher or code, not
getting solution in any known language.
------------------------------------------
There are many possible rational motives and more possible irrational
motives. Start with: intellectual exercise, creative expression,
improve on existing writing, to amuse, to fuddle, to get rid of an
(imaginary) extra ear.
I am not keen on assigning authorship to a historical person without
evidence. We cannot know a small percentage of the people who could
have created the manuscript even if we should know the time and the
general location.
We do not know who, if anyone else, the author hoped would learn to
read it.
------------------------------------------
---So there must be still something else and now we are really
getting deep into the jungle. With all due respect to the VM author,
the complexity could not be that high, provided that it was written
to be read by somebody who should be able to figure it out only with
pen and paper.
So . . .
------------------------------------------
I believe we can pretty well rule out sophistication but
let's not rule out complexity on a conditional observation.
------------------------------------------
.. . . what it was it that eluded the solution for so long and made us
so blind? I know this is mainly philosophical question, but here are
only two answers: a) it is something we half-checked and discarded,
or b) something completely new. Comparing it with military messages,
which supposedly need only 500 letters so they can be able to be
cracked down (I believe that applies for monoalphabetic cipher, known
language and no code), the VM author gave us generously plenty of
ammunition for statistic evaluation, for observing certain rules and
work it out. Still, the high quantity here does not mean that much -
doesn't it tell us something?
------------------------------------------
>From general reading, it is my understanding that one of the first
things a cryptanalyst does is to compare letter frequencies. It is
astounding to think there were no letter frequency comparisons made
with the most elegible texts until recently (by you). Did everyone
assume the early heavyweights covered all the basic stuff and then,
themselves, only attempt elaborate methods? Did everyone do this on
their own and take it for granted that everyone else did the same?
Surely, I am missing something here. I would like to see it done with
larger samples. No doubt there were differences in individual writing
as there are in modern times. See:
http://cryptogram.org/cdb/words/etaoin.txt But, for now, I am
impressed with the results as they are.
------------------------------------------
.... One interesting thing: while there are meny methods published for
solving the substitution ciphers, there are only few for
transposition ciphers and ac tually quite cumbersome ( see Lanaki
lectures on Net On the other hand). Stuill, those are the most
underestimated ciphers and in complex form very difficult to solve
(especially if we do not know the language). Cobinations go to high
factorials and that's why they are used more and more in computer
communications.
------------------------------------------
My agreement has no bearing on the matter but I do agree.
------------------------------------------
Best regards. Jan
----------------------
Ciao ........... Knox
----------------------
______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list
______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list