(30-12-2022, 10:54 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm not sure if this is the best way of putting this given the current state of our knowledge.
Sure. My opinion only, not a certainty.
Quote:It suggests that the Voynich cipher (if we assume it is one) is a conscious attempt to make substitution ciphers more difficult to crack.
My system is not better than a substitution cipher with homophones and nulls for any purpose other than having fun, possibly in the context of a game. Therefore of no practical value for "serious" cryptography. If it is more secure, it is mostly because we don't know the rules. Any system with unknown rules is nearly impossible to crack. I tried several variants of the antipolybius or zigzag path cipher but I believe that there is some added complexity in the way apparent ligatures and gallows should be interpreted, that are difficult to guess.
Even when the system was known, all ciphers and codes were as secure (i.e. not very) as the key or code book that had to be transmitted separately and could be intercepted.
(30-12-2022, 11:21 AM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.An overly complicated system would be very cumbersome to implement and, given the mass of text, also very error-prone.
Yes. My design constraints for trying to replicate Voynichese were: nothing that requires more than a quick look at a table to encipher/decipher a letter or a few letters at a time. All ciphers/codes other than monoalphabetic substitution require more time-consuming or boring operations. In this sense, my system fits nicely in the gap.
(30-12-2022, 03:45 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.- in case of a historical innovation, evidence of the previous thoughts may no longer be available, or ahs not yet been found.
This is true. However they will only be found if people look for them, which makes the search for them an important endeavour. There often seems to be an eagerness to postulate an explanation for the Voynich "cipher" without any attempt to find or justify any historical antecedence.
(30-12-2022, 03:45 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In any case, my main concern with respect to the discussion is the term "The cipher". We do not even know if there is one, or, if there is a method, it is anything like "a cipher".
I agree we don't know if there is a cipher. However when I conducted my poll on the Ninja forum the majority of those who answered said that they believed the Voynich to be most likely written in cipher. In fact on the last occasion that I asked you then you said that you thought the Voynich to be written in cipher. So whilst this may not be the case it seems reasonable to operate on the basis that it is the most likely scenario. The "cipher" is the most important or distinguishing feature of the Voynich manuscript, so this topic is on a side issue, but very much central to the study of the manuscript.
Let me start by stating unequivocally that I know absolutely nothing.
To me, all the figure '8' glyphs are equivalent. If 'd' works for you, that's good enough. Also changed the first 'a' to an 'o'.
It now reads: dor deos dum dos datis
And it translates from Latin: pain the gods while giving gifts
Straight out of Google Translate! No kidding.
So, just wondering - is this serious?????? Somehow the word 'pain' doesn't quite fit. Is 'dor' some sort of imperative form of 'dolore'?
Seeking a better translation of Latin 'dor' here:
Probably from Late Latin[b] dolus[/b] (“pain, grief”), a derivative of Latin dolor (“pain”); alternatively, and less likely, from dolus (“trickery, deception”), from Ancient Greek δόλος (dólos).
Think I'll take it as the second option: deceive the gods while giving gifts.
(30-12-2022, 02:49 AM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (30-12-2022, 02:10 AM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But if was a superior way to encipher text then surely it would have been very popular. Clearly a cipher as difficult to break as the Voynich cipher would have been preferred to the standard ciphers of that time.
Not necessarily if it was an absolute pain to use. Diplomatic and military cyphers have not always prioritised greater secrecy over speed, to their cost.
Sure, I agree. This is a point that I discussed in some detail in the presentation that I gave in October.
(30-12-2022, 10:54 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (30-12-2022, 09:51 AM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There is an evolutionary gap between substitution ciphers and more advanced ciphers/codes that the Voynich fills nicely.
I'm not sure if this is the best way of putting this given the current state of our knowledge. It suggests that the Voynich cipher (if we assume it is one) is a conscious attempt to make substitution ciphers more difficult to crack. Wouldn't we expect such innovation in a different context, i.e. politics, espionage, military...? The Voynich just appears to be a different beast altogether, at least I wouldn't place it in any kind of evolutionary or hierarchical scheme.
I view the Voynich cipher as something that evolved out of Diplomatic Ciphers of the early 15th century. Whilst the Voynich is not a diplomatic document I believe that Milanese diplomatic ciphers were the parent from which the Voynich cipher emerged. It is noteworthy that early 15th century Milanese ciphers have advanced features not seen in later 15th century Milanese ciphers. In fact the most sophisticated Milanese cipher of the 15th century known to me dates to 1424. I believe that Milanese ciphers became simple for reasons of ease of use.
(30-12-2022, 06:36 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In fact on the last occasion that I asked you then you said that you thought the Voynich to be written in cipher.
Just to be very clear, all the collected evidence about the behaviour of the Voynich MS text tells me exactly the opposite. I do not believe that this is a cipher, in the sense that ciphers should be understood in the late middle ages and early modern times. I am quite open to the possibility that some method was used to convert a plain text to the result we now see in the Voynich MS. One might of course just call that method a cipher, but it will not be anything like the usual concept of a cipher.
At the same time, I consider all on-going searches in archives for evidence of old ciphers to be of great interest. This is an area of interest by itself, completely independent of whether or not this brings new insights in the meaning of the Voynich MS.
When one starts a search, the level of conviction that one is going to find the thing one wants is unfortunately no measure of success. At the same time, more often than not one will find other things, and it is also not unusual to realise the relevance of these only much later.
Actually, I mean "dor" from "dare".
I only need the "o=a" at the beginning for Google.
Goggle only understands "a" although some regions prefer "i". This has something to do with Latin dialects.
It's not easy to classify something if you don't know Latin yourself. I can only do it this way.
[
attachment=7137]
[
attachment=7138]
Aside.
If you find the VM_word "Saiin" "et-aiin", this is what it could mean. Which brings us to the ending "....a-iin".