Re: VMs: Follow-up

["Jeff" <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Pelling" <incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 21 June 2004 15:34

> In fact, if you want a good VMs-related crypto project, you might simply
> consider trying to resolve the question of which pairs of glyphs are most
> likely to be verbose pairs (ie, code for single tokens). Visually, the
> answer seems fairly obvious - "qo", "ol", "al", "ar", "or", "ee", "eee",
> "eeee", "ii", "iii", "iiii", "eo", "dy", "cho". But is this provable? How
> does it affect typical stats (like word-length distribution, etc)?
> Something to think about...
>
> Cheers, .....Nick Pelling......
>

Interesting selection Nick. I would consider a lot more candidates than
that. Have you got a full list of what you assume to be verbose? It would be
interesting to see your list and then start to reconcile that with GC's
transcription to see what might come out of analysis. I have seen some
promise in what GC has done so far. I have done initial work with it but not
a concerted effort.

Jeff


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