Re: VMs: Criteria for a successful solution

[Rene Zandbergen <r_zandbergen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jan wrote:

> > [Rene]: 1a. It should work for the whole Ms,
> > not just a 
> > small part.
> 
> It may be that there are several methods used for
> different sections (keys, etc.) so it may not work
> all over.

One can be a bit flexible here, but a method that
only works for two pages, or one word out of
every 20, cannot be accepted. We already know that
some things are consistent throughout the 
MS (some frequent words occur all over) so anyone
who proposes a solution for only a section of the MS
should be able to indicate why it would not work
elsewhere. Strong's solution is not a bad example:
he uses a polyalphabetic cipher with many different
alphabet tables. These are all parameters that he
can adjust in order to get meaningful text out.
If it is not the right solution, it will only be
possible for a relatively short part of the text.

> >1b. It should work for the labels, and translate 
> >   to meaningful label words.
> 
> Right - provided the labels are meaningful  :-).

Well, many label words are the same as plain text
words. They also largely follow the same paradigms.
Yet, they are different in that they don't
follow Zipf's law. An acceptable solution will
need to come up with a good 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. In particular, it should be
> >   clear how or why the word patters from the
> >   core-mantle-crust or prefix-midfix-suffix
> >   paradigms arise.
> 
> Right, to satisfy the linguists. If however there is
> a cipher used, the "words" lose their 
> meaning. Same with using "nulls"  in  the text.

It should be valid for a cipher as well. Nulls
could be part of the explanation, why not?

> >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. 

So far, the vast majority of solutions provide
a date, language and plain text, and this criterium
could be used for such solutions.
It is indeed meaningless for Rugg's 
hypothesis, and also largely for Levitov's 
who proposes an otherwise unknown 'language'.

> Yes, but what if it is a "trapdoor", non-reversible
> algorithm? 

If someone would propose this as a solution, there
will indeed be other criteria needed to be able
to decide....

> Right,  but that brings another point: we cannot
> expect 100 percent solution, based on the 
> fact that some plaintext words or expressions would
> be obsolete, unexplainable and some 
> (maybe) related to contemporary events and so on.

Agreed. There will undoubtedly be errors in the
MS text as well.

Cheers, Rene



		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 
______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list