Re: VMs: VMS Word context similarities

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

Heikki wrote

>
>
> Marke Fincher wrote:
> > I have to admit though, the thing that bugs me about this
> > approach is that I'm not sure I really believe that
> > VMS-words are truly words.   The vocabulary size seems too
> > small; the common words are too common and the others
> > too rare,
>
> So the words are not words.
>
>   >especially when you start contemplating the
> > existence of nulls, or noise, or multiple languages,
> > and all that jazz.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Marke
>
> I keep it obvious that it is coded text. Propably created by some two
> dimensional table (vertical and horizontal lines of letter or numbers).
> If we assume that spaces are really for word breaks it is because these
> kind table could otherwise produce ambigious ciphertext. Single
> character words means then that "alphabet" used for ciphering has at
> least one null or empty symbol.
>
>
> Something like

I and probably many others have been down this road. The problem is that
this method cannot be reconciled with the analysis of Jorge Stolfi. Anything
that cannot accomodate his findings, at least in principle, will not provide
a
solution.

>
> A B C D E F G H I K L M N O P Q R S T U X Y Z ?
> B c d e f g h i k l m n o p q r s t u x y z ? a
> C d e f g h i k l m n o p q r s t u x y z ? a b
> D e f g h i k l m n o p q r s t u x y z ? a b c
> E f g h i k l m n o p q r s t u x y z ? a b c d
> F g h i k l m n o p q r s t u x y z ? a b c d e
> G h i k l m n o p q r s t u x y z ? a b c d e f
> H i k l m n o p q r s t u x y z ? a b c d e f g
> I k l m n o p q r s t u x y z ? a b c d e f g h
> K l m n o p q r s t u x y z ? a b c d e f g h i
> L m n o p q r s t u x y z ? a b c d e f g h i k
> M n o p q r s t u x y z ? a b c d e f g h i k l
> N o p q r s t u x y z ? a b c d e f g h i k l m
> O p q r s t u x y z ? a b c d e f g h i k l m n
> P q r s t u x y z ? a b c d e f g h i k l m n o
> Q r s t u x y z ? a b c d e f g h i k l m n o p
> R s t u x y z ? a b c d e f g h i k l m n o p q
> S t u x y z ? a b c d e f g h i k l m n o p q r
> T u x y z ? a b c d e f g h i k l m n o p q r s
> U x y z ? a b c d e f g h i k l m n o p q r s t
> X y z ? a b c d e f g h i k l m n o p q r s t u
> Y z ? a b c d e f g h i k l m n o p q r s t u x
> Z ? a b c d e f g h i k l m n o p q r s t u x y
> ? a b c d e f g h i k l m n o p q r s t u x y z
>
>
> You can use this to code 1 plain character with 2 ciphered ones
> BB=c
> You can use this to code 1 plain character with 1 ciphered one
> ?B=a (?B is equal B)
> And 0 plain character (null) with 2 ciphered ones
> TF=?
> where ? is for null.
>

Here I can agree in principle with your ideas. A verbose element can explain
some of the features of the VMS but not all. As Gabriel pointed out, there
are
some initial sequences that appear to be key-like. There are also oddities
containing multiple gallows. The verbose angle is worth pursuing for the
insights
you may get into the internal structure. However there apears to be a sting
in the
tail. Particular VMS word can have more than one meaning. That is not to say
that all of them do.

I here have to agree with GC. The roots of the VMS probably lie with Anthony
Ascham. I am not convinced that the cipher is his but I am willing to go out
on
a limb and say the herbal A content is his.

> Other charasteric feature: when plain character is present in ciphered
> version , it's never alone.
>
> This can of course also used with a key.
> *********************
> This may look too simple, but the fact is that the most problems in
> historical deciphering are from suspicious assumptions by the one who's
> trying to decipher.

Regards

Jeff

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