(30-12-2022, 11:21 AM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The method with which the VMS could be "encrypted" is perhaps simpler than one might first assume.
I fear you are right. I suspect that once the Voynich has been deciphered some people will be wondering what all the fuss was about. And people will be scratching their heads wondering why someone didn't find the solution earlier. But given a universe of myriad possible ciphers, languages etc. then finding the right one is not so easy. Problems also seem easier once they are solved.
I am not saying the Voynich cipher is simple, however I do agree that it is probably simpler than people think it is.
@Mark
Without the cryptological achievements, it won't go on either way. Without new discoveries, the PC professionals can keep tweaking the parameters of their programmes as long as they want. The chicken will still not lay any golden eggs. Without new clues, they are stuck.
I am convinced that your search for examples of encryption will help. But you also have to evaluate what you find. That means which systems were used.
VM is pretty securely encrypted. He certainly used a combination system. But that cannot be all. There must be more.
Just keep it up. Realisation will follow.
[attachment=7152]
What I just noticed in Marco's beautiful example in the KI case is that the endings -um/-us, -tis roughly correspond to that of the VM. (taurus_taurum).
The frequent ending in -is also leads me to conclude something else, but that is still pure speculation.
(29-12-2022, 08:39 PM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Quote:And why would this phenomenon emerge only once with the Voynich and not independently in other instances?
The VM was done for fun, not necessity.
And why does the situation of "fun" occur only once in the case of the Voynich manuscript and in no other documents. Why weren't there other people developing complex ciphers for fun at that time? Again you still have this notion of Voynichese having no antecedence and having just emerged out of the blue.
Fun or necessity?
The question is what the book looks like. That's a question I asked, but never got an answer.
What does the book look like? You can't say it looks new. Some old, expensive books still look like new. Others look more like they have survived some wear and tear.
The VM looks to me like it has no real damage, but there are significant signs of use. Mainly on the page edges.
I take this as an example of school books that have been in use for several years. Here the pages also seem worn.
If the VM shows such signs of use over many years, I could imagine that it was used as a reference work in a pharmacy or doctor's office. Written in such a way that not everyone can read it quickly when it is lying open. I am thinking here of people who wanted to maintain their status as a doctor or pharmacist in a region.
Now the question for specialists. What does the book look like? New, used, heavily used, or exposed to some other influence. Fire, water, or just long forgotten?
Regarding the potential for a complex system considered too advanced for the era, is it possible to combine two 'C-14-contemporary' systems in some way, so that the complexity is not in the system itself, but in the combination of cipher systems?
Yes. Example:
Example: A letter has another character. This would be a simple exchange system. This is what many in the VM try to do, but it is not realistic.
Two characters put together to form a new character. Combination system. Used to be popular.
Possibility: Single and combination.
Integrate old familiar applications. Example: ending abbreviations and other abbreviations. Now there are already 3 different systems combined in one. With an additional marker, there are already 4.
My view.
As it looks to me, the VM uses at least 4 systems.
But there must be something else.
The nice thing about it is, quick to learn, because most of it is already used anyway, but still hard to crack, because many systems.
To make it a little clearer. Why are signs of use helpful.
If there were heavy signs of use, the book would have been laid out somewhere as a reference work. Example pharmacy. Now it has to go fast. To put it sarcastically. By the time you have broken it down with a template, the patient is dead. He was known, people were queuing for him.
From that point of view, the template is no longer necessary. At the same time, it has to be easy to read and understand, so certainly no other mechanical means.
To put it in words. Let those who know about it speak now, or forever hold their peace.
(04-01-2023, 12:03 AM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And why does the situation of "fun" occur only once in the case of the Voynich manuscript and in no other documents.
If this is a serious question, you should get acquainted with medieval ciphers; the "fun" ones, not the "serious" diplomatic and military ones.
Quote:Why weren't there other people developing complex ciphers for fun at that time?
How do you know? Have you seen everything that people wrote?
Quote:Again you still have this notion of Voynichese having no antecedence and having just emerged out of the blue.
I don't. If there were antecedents, they are lost. If not, there is a first for everything.
You still have the notion that the VM emerged from diplomatic ciphers, without any evidence of a link (4o doesn't count: symbols are arbitrary), and despite a mountain of real, quantifiable differences.
What is your strictly utilitarian, no fun whatsoever, explanation for this:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
(04-01-2023, 12:52 PM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (04-01-2023, 12:03 AM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And why does the situation of "fun" occur only once in the case of the Voynich manuscript and in no other documents.
If this is a serious question, you should get acquainted with medieval ciphers; the "fun" ones, not the "serious" diplomatic and military ones.
It was a serious question. Which other "fun" medieval ciphers are you referring to? Are you talking about the ciphers in Bischoff or are you referring to other ciphers?
(04-01-2023, 12:52 PM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Quote:Why weren't there other people developing complex ciphers for fun at that time?
How do you know? Have you seen everything that people wrote?
No I haven't. Have you? One can only go on the known data out there. I don't know of any other complex cipher developed for fun at that time. If you do please let me know about them.
(04-01-2023, 12:52 PM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Quote:Again you still have this notion of Voynichese having no antecedence and having just emerged out of the blue.
I don't. If there were antecedents, they are lost. If not, there is a first for everything.
How do you know they are lost? Have you made any effort to look for them?
It seems just too convenient to say that all antecedents are lost to history. My own suspicion is that these precursors to your anti-polybius, like the anti-polybius itself, never existed in the first place.
(04-01-2023, 12:52 PM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You still have the notion that the VM emerged from diplomatic ciphers, without any evidence of a link (4o doesn't count: symbols are arbitrary), and despite a mountain of real, quantifiable differences.
What is your strictly utilitarian, no fun whatsoever, explanation for this:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
How much do you know about diplomatic ciphers?