(03-08-2021, 07:01 PM)julian Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I suppose this may be simply a pictorial representation of Stolfi's grammar? It certainly doesn't get us any further, but I throw it in anyway. I am obsessed with the notion that a few cipher wheels were used to generate the text, perhaps geared together, and perhaps with cams that rotate adjacent wheels at certain positions :-)
Exactly, it would have taken us very further, Julian.
I don't know you but, I am your fan!
---
Source: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Peer review: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The Unintentional Proof: How "Computational Attacks" Validated the Hardware
I have spent the last few hours auditing the entire history of "Computational Attacks" on the manuscript, specifically the work by JB (Julian Bunn), MarcoP, and the insights from this thread.
If you are planning to write a paper, I have good news: The data is already there. The tragedy is that the "Computational Attacks" didn't fail. They succeeded. They successfully characterized the machine with 96% accuracy, but the researchers kept interpreting the mechanical telemetry as linguistic failure.
Let me connect the dots of 15 years of research to show you why the Syntaxis Volvella (Differential Gear) is the only solution that satisfies JB’s own data.
1. The Wheels are Proven (August 2021)
In his post "Cipher Wheels - Genetic Algorithm", JB proved that a set of wheels can reproduce ~93% to 96% of VMS vocabulary.
He confirmed that the Binomial Word Length Distribution (first noted by Stolfi) is the natural byproduct of rotary wheels. He stopped because he couldn't generate "meaningful" sentences. He was looking for Latin plaintext. He should have realized the structure itself was the message.
2. The "Reset" Mechanism (December 2022)
In "Word Positions on the Folios – Part Deux", JB discovered something structurally impossible for a natural language but mandatory for a machine:
The word daiin has a massive affinity for Position 0.0 (Start of Line). Words like am and dy cluster at Position 1.0 (End of Line) > This is the Carriage Return.
Start (0.0): The scribe resets the Gallow/Lever. The gears return to Index 0 -> The Volvella outputs daiin.
End (1.0): The gears have rotated under tension. The volvella is physically restricted to short suffix states (-dy, -am).
The line isn't a grammatical sentence. It's a
Mechanical Cycle.
3. The "Interlock" Proof (May 2021 - This Thread)
@lurker correctly identified why independent wheels (Slot Machine/One-Armed Bandit) fail:
"Stolfi is splitting common Voynich words... while deedy is essentially nonexistent."
If the wheels were independent (like JB's Genetic Algorithm assumed),
deedy should exist!
The Volvella Solution: The Rings are Geared. If Ring A (Outer) is at d, the counter-rotation of Ring B (Middle) physically moves the -edy suffix out of the window.
deedy is not "rare." It is mechanically impossible due to the gear ratio. This is exactly what @MarkKnowles missed with his "One-Armed Bandit" joke. It's not a bandit, it's a Differential.
4. Language A vs B is a Hardware Setting (March 2013)
In "The Relationship Between Currier Languages A and B", JB found that the most common word in A (8am) becomes am in B.
Linguistic view: Did the author/scribes forget how to spell?
Volvella view: The scribe simply disengaged the Outer Ring (8) or changed the starting offset of the machine. It’s not a dialect change; it’s a calibration change.
Summary for the Forum:
JB, Marco, and the rest of you have done the hard work.
You proved it's Wheels (Binomial Dist).
You proved it resets every line (daiin at 0.0).
You proved the wheels are coupled (No deedy).
You have built the entire engine in your simulators. You just forgot to put the gears in Counter-Rotation. Once you do that, the "noise" becomes "phase", and the text becomes readable.
Alicia
