Re: VMs: Criteria for a successful solution

[elvogt@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Zitat von Jan <hurychj@xxxxxxxxx>:

> Hello Rene,  
> ...
> >1. there should be a clearly described procedure
> >   how the MS text was generated, which could have
> >   been performed by someone from the proposed
> >   time of origin, and is reproducible. 
> 
> Well, if we are talking about somebody  ingenious, he might have had a new
> method, not 
> yet used in his time ( if the solution really fits,  that criterion should
> prevail). ...

Please read Rene carefully: He spoke of a method "which could have been 
performed..."

This doesn't exclude a currently unknown encoding algorithm (obviously, the VM 
is encoded in a manner unknown today), this doesn't even exclude some encoding 
which was unknown in the author's time.

But if we assume that the VM wasn't written much later than 1600, and if we 
encounter an algorithm which includes, say, the orbital parameters of the 
planet Uranus, which was only discovered much later, or requires a modern-day 
computer's calculating power, we should be very wary of this explanation.

> ...
> >2. the 'odd features' of the MS text, as first 
> >   pointed out by Currier, and extended in the
> >   mean time by later analysis, should be explained
> >   by the solution. ...
> 
> Right, to satisfy the linguists. If however there is a cipher used, the
> "words" lose their 
> meaning. Same with using "nulls"  in  the text.

Still the proposed algorithm needs to explain the presence of the "nulls."

If the algorithm suggests etc., "insert <daiins> at random, and ignore them 
when decoding", that's fair enough, IMHO.

>  
> >3. The 'encryption method', when applied to 
> >   other normal texts of the proposed time period
> >   and language, should generate Voynich-like
> >   properties.
> 
> Not necessarily -  we do not even know if the paintext was meaningfull and in
> which 
> language. 

If the proposed solution yields only gibberish, it's not a solution at all. 
It's only a solution if the decoding algorithm renders a readable, sensible 
text.

(If the VM is only gibberish, it's obviously impossible to prove this fact, and 
there simply is no solution.)

> ...>
> >I particularly like (3), which was proposed, if
> >I am not much mistaken, by Bruce Grant. It means
> >that in solving the mystery, one has to concentrate
> >on the 'encryption' method rather than the
> >'decryption' method.
> 
> Yes, but what if it is a "trapdoor", non-reversible algorithm? 

What's the point of encoding a message which you can't decode? I can understand 
why somebody would use a "lossy" algorithm (like cutting out vowels, 
transposing letters etc.), but that'd still allow a "recovery" of the original 
text.

> Not likely,
> and ther should be however no 
> ambiguity: the author would most probably use fully reversible system of
> encoding. Which brings 
> another question: did author leave any clue somewhere?  If not, how did he
> expect he VM  be    
> solved at all? Was it intended only to the group of "initiated", so there was
> no clue in 
> the text  (or pictures)?  

Three answers:

a) There are some sections in the VM which have been considered candidates 
for "clues". If not the algorithm, they might at least contain keys to decode 
the message. (The most prominent of these is the "oladabas..." sentence on the 
last page.)

b) The algorithm may be simple enough to be kept in your head.

c) There might have been a reference manual somewhere, kept apart from the VM.

Pretty obviously the encoding was used to keep the readership limited, and to 
keep the potential audience small. (Perhaps even as small as 1, namely the 
author himself -- in case the VM was something like his personal notebook.)

>  ...

> Jan
> 

Cheers,

   Elmar


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