Re: Re: Re: VMs: A very important discovery!!

["jan" <hurychj@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Koontz John E,



Best regards, 
  
======= 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. 
			
jan



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