Re: VMs: VMS Lookalike encipherment

["J HALEY" <j.haley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Knox Mix Wrote on 11 July 2005


> 
> [Jeff Haley: The word chol is very common in the manuscript so it was 
> assumed at this time that the group cho was not in fact a verbose group.]
> 
> KM: But *Ao* in the table is considered a verbose group (VG)?
> 

Ao is not considered a verbose group. Sorry for the confusion. Ao was
a compacted form of the EVA cho group. The table that Ao appears in
was an intermediary step in the analysis process and non of the entries
in that table were included in the eventual identification verbose groups.
Maybe I should have expanded the explanation in more detail to avoid
ambiguity.

Sorry again for the confusion. I didn't pick up on exactly what your point
was initially.

> If *cho* and *ol* are VG's, *chol* would always be understood by an 
> intended reader as *cho+ol* because there is no *chool* -- discounting 
> at least three such strings in the Takahashi transcription in favor of 
> the Majority Vote. The same could apply to other letters. That leaves 
> *iii* ambiguous unless the glyphs can be interpreted differently (as 
> they have been). In that scheme *eee* would have to be a VG distinct 
> from *e* and *ee*. All conjectural on my part. Might fit in somewhere.
> 

Jeff


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