The Voynich Ninja

Full Version: How do you know when an encrypted book is solved?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
There are over 100 encrypted books:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
some solved, some unsolved. But how do you know when you have actually solved it? There are so many solutions to the VMS that I may have to take off my shoes and socks to count them...and each one of these 10+ persons "solving" it thought his/her solution was correct. How do you know for sure?
Until now, only a few words or sometimes some sentences have been "solved" in the VMS. The further processing is then gladly left to the inclined reader. This is of course too little to speak of a solution. It would have to be reasonably consistent throughout the entire manuscript.
External validation.
To know 100% for sure that you have solved a puzzle corectly you need external validation.
Take something from your solution that can be used to find/solve/verify some other thing that was previously unknown.
Encrypted pirate treasure map -> decrypt -> dig -> 'Ahoy mateys thar be the treasure'... or some such.
The result is independently reproducible, given a known method, and it is comprehensible.
Experimenter finds 10 decryptors, and 10 judges. Each decryptor works alone to try decrypting a passage of the encrypted text, using the proposed key. Each judge, working alone, receives and examines the work of all 10 decryptors at the same time. Each judge assigns a single score to the lot, between 1 and 10, corresponding to the maximum number of decryption attempts that bear substantial thematic similarity to each other. The experimenter adds all 10 judges' scores together. A final value ≥80 will be deemed positive, indicative of a high probability of a correct key. A final value ≤20 will be deemed negative, indicative of a low probability of a correct key; the null hypothesis stands. A value between 21 and 79 will be deemed inconclusive, but very much meriting further investigation. The key may be "on the right track", but in need of substantial refining.

Privacy-enhancing technologies like the Tor browser, VPNs, and messaging systems utilizing end-to-end encryption like PGP would be all the infrastructure needed to ensure tight double-blinded testing conditions. Ideally no one involved would have any idea who anyone else was. In particular, the decryptors and judges would not know who the maker of the key they're testing is, and vice versa. Judges and decryptors would not know who each other were either, or even that there were anyone else out there doing what they're doing. Collusion, collaboration, or interference by the key maker or other participants could be reasonably ruled out. Blockchain technology could be utilized for airtight accountability of every bit of information at every step. The experimenter would want to randomly select the passage of the encrypted text to give the decryptors, after they were enrolled in the study and ready to work.

Paying the decryptors and judges for their work would be the only substantial expenses for a study like this. The reports, with figures and a discussion of the methods and results, could be auto-generated for each key tested. It's quite possible not only could grant money fairly easily be found to cover a study like this, but there are probably some amateur cryptographers (treasure hunters, actually) who'd pay out of pocket to have their proposed decryption attempt run through this kind of mill, and have a good sense of whether their pet project is worth pursuing any further. Anybody want to make some money?  Angel

What I'd really like to see, though, is a YouTube show modeled after You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., where each episode, a colorful Voynich theorist gives a passionate PowerPoint pitch of his/her colorful theory, and swallows a big hard jagged lump of humble pie, as a select panel of voynich.ninja's finest, assembled from around the world on a Zoom call, stick their fingers through the holes in the theory. I have no doubt this could be pretty entertaining, if produced and edited well. And who knows? It could even raise enough awareness about the VMs that the true solution comes out of the woodwork. One problem I foresee, though, is pressure from YouTube's viewers and advertisers to make the show trashier and more exploitative than most panelists would feel comfortable pandering to.[url=https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=ELE1PGOJ1VJ8Q][/url]
I feel like when it's solved, we will know. So far all proposed solutions are so atrocious and take so little of the manuscript's properties into account, that a correct solution should be noticeably different. For example, it will hopefully not contain a step that turns the thing into a one-way cipher, or a "creative phase" where the decipherer chooses which letters to fill in until he gets something that produces a semi-acceptable word-mess in google translate.
(18-07-2020, 06:09 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I feel like when it's solved, we will know....


That's how I feel also. It will make some rational sense and the pieces will fit together better than what we typically see in subjective solutions.
The solution, when it arrives, will be as obviously right as 99.9% of Voynich theories are obviously wrong.
Many amateur codebreakers produce solutions that are indeed reproducible (when the method is comprehensible), but suffer from being non-unique.  That is, their solution is only one of multitudes of plausible solutions that can be generated using the same method that produced their proposed solution.  That, to me, is a good filter for distinguishing real and false solutions.  (Related topics: multiplicity, and unicity distance)
If there are a multitude of possible solutions, then it's not reproducible.
Pages: 1 2