Re: Re: Re: VMs: Criteria for a successful solution

["Jan" <hurychj@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello John,  
======= At 2004-08-16, 14:25:00 you wrote: =======

>- If it's gibberish, it's impossible to make a mistake, although this
>argument works less well in the face of "constructed gibberish."  Against
>this, I think it's felt, e.g., by Rugg, that if it is gibberish, it is
>highly constructed gibberish.

Well, it certainly cannot be "unconstructed" gibberish, the statistics  shows it is not 
purely random, not even haphazard random.
>
>- The VMs a is a clear copy, or a second copy, most likely by the original
>author(s), since a latter day copiest would be less practiced (at first),
>resulting in errors and awkwardly formed letters.

Right, but I have the feeling that even when copying, it would be difficult to avoid 
few mistakes and subsequent erasures or deletions. But I might be wrong here. 
>
>- A third possibility is that the text is not elaborately enciphered, 
Right again - and there is of course another option: when mistakes were discovered bu author, 
they were cunningly left uncorrected. Or maybe he did  not discover any mistakes? :-)

But seriously, the author's method cannot hardly be that sophisticated or that complicated 
as we assume. As Kahn and Manly pointed out, there must be something simple we 
still cannot see.  But if there is a clue in the manuscript, where should we look?  ( only a
rhetorical question, of course :-).

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

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
			

Best regards.				 
Jan
 Our mail is always sent without attachments.
 http://hurontaria.baf.cz/enigma/ Enigma, nas novy casopis zahad


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