[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re: Re: VMs: A very important discovery!!
Hello Koontz John E,
======= At 2004-09-28, 15:00:19 you wrote: =======
>That's another argument for not seeing the gallows as keys, but somone
>could always argue that in the absence of a leading gallows a standard
>value is to be assumed, while in the presence of a superfluous one one is
>facing misdirection on the part of the encrypter. This last is
>Ridderstad's argument, as I understand it. One could also argue a policy
>of entering a "selector" whenever resuming encypherment after a pause.
I see the novelty in c onsidering other possible func tions of gallows- Wemay as well add:
1) They may be nulls, i.e. empty signs - but I doubt it, they certainly are not purely random, anyway
2) If they are not random, is there any algorithm by which they were inserted in? Are there any obvious rules why they were put in those different locations?
3) Why were they chosen to be higher than the other signs? There were certainly enough combinations of segments to provide for symbols ( they being simple characters or encoding signs or else) and besides, the rows may have been than lower :-).
4) They do have a system: all 4 start vith vertical line and
add the loop, 2 starting in South direction, 2 in SW crossing to the East the first leg, before they all go
East and make a loop. Then again they differ: 2 have secondleg long, 2 have short one, terminated by crossing the first vertical leg. That woudl basically point to something which has only 4 categories, sinc eno other combinations were needed.
5) Of course, they still could be plain letters, but the combination wher ethe gallows enters in the middle of the other sign (EVA's cth, cph, ckh, cfh). True it could mena something like Russian stch,
shtch, but I doubt it, apparently they do not seem to appear that often as in Russian language.
>Yes, though this approach only works with "local-effect" gallows. If
>gallows only occurred at the end of a word (and there were only one), they
>might indicate, say, superscriptingm the convention modern indicator of
>"reduced letter inclusion" or abbreviation, as in y(raised e, t. etc)
>for the, that, etc., or 1er, 2me, ... or 1st, 2nd, ...
Right, I had my doubts too.
>Thinking in terms of a letter scheme, however, whether for clear text or
>encryption, there's no reason why some letters might not have one
>graphical logic and others another, with no particular phonetic logic.
true, but Iwould assume first the simpler reason and that is phonetics.
The other reason could by artificial complication withoiut gaining too much.
>A third point you might raise is the function of embedding gallows within
>benches. Does that yield an extended set of control characters, or do we
>follow Ridderstad in supposing, essentially, an arbitrary ligature of the
>gallows with something either following, or, alternatively, preceding.
Well, we may need more statistics to tilt our opinion one or the other way.
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying: