The Voynich Ninja

I have a conjecture, which is probably pretty obvious, and yet which there seems to be a tendency to deny especially in the case of the Voynich manuscript.

This is namely that: “it is often much much easier to invent a cipher than to break it.”

The basis from which Gordon Rudd and the like have often said that the Voynich cannot be written in cipher is that if it were then it would have be deciphered by modern cryptographic techniques. I think this overestimates the power of modern cryptographic techniques and underestimates the easy with which a difficult cipher can be created.

To use a phrase, there is “security through obscurity”. And I don’t think one needs to be a genius with some effort to produce a pretty obscure cipher. It would not even need to be academically a clever cipher just have a combination of bizarre obscure features. You would have to give it some thought and effort to come up with a cipher, but I doubt it is that difficult. It seems to me that the Zodiac cipher and the like prove this point. There is no reason to believe the Zodiac killer was an expert cryptographer.

I raise this as I get frustrated when I hear the argument that the Voynich cannot be written in cipher, because if it was it almost certainly would have been deciphered by now. This assumes that it would not have been possible for a cipher from 600 years ago to be created which is not easy to decipher now. (I can say from my own experience that deciphering some 600 year old ciphers is not easy at all. All too often, I think people, who say it is, have never deciphered a sophistated cipher from that time.)

I think an important restriction on the complexity of a cipher tends to be practicality. One can pile cipher upon cipher upon cipher, combining lots of different cipher techniques, however it the cipher becomes too complicated then with the absense of a computer it can become impossible for a human to apply it correctly in a timely manner without making mistakes. So practicality or usability is really the force that holds back a cipher’s complexity much more than difficulty of invention does.

Mark,

a simple question: How can you tell if a text is encrypted?
[size=1]w can you tell if a text is encrypted?
[/size]

Quote:There is no reason to believe the Zodiac killer was an expert cryptographer.

Well, as we do not know much about anything about the Zodiac killer, there is no reason to believe that the Zodiac killer was not a cryptographer either. Even cryptographers can become killers. What is understood is that the Zodiac killer might have had connections with Booz Allen Hamilton consulting firm on other hand and on the other there are clues in the messages that he/she had level of intelligence above the "normal", whatever normal means in this context.

But at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter much if VMS is encrypted, encoded or otherwise transformed. We don't even know if it is text what we see, it is just an educated assumption. All we know it contains some strange glyphs in a strange order, interesting symbols, strange pictures of strange plants - animals and humans, some kind of things that look us like stars, some pots and like, and some other things that look identifiable but possibly are not. And of course, tons of interesting, strange and sometimes contradictory statistical properties. 

(20-04-2023, 07:56 AM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Mark,

a simple question: How can you tell if a text is encrypted?

I don't think there can be a universal procedure for determining if a text is encrypted. It almost seems reminiscent of the "halting problem".

Of course we also face the question of what precisely on means by "encryption".

Nevertheless, everything I said in my previous comment does not presuppose the existence a universal technique to determine if a text is encrypted.

(20-04-2023, 12:18 PM)Scarecrow Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.it doesn't really matter much if VMS is encrypted, encoded or otherwise transformed.

I would have thought that this is crucial if we wish to one day be able to read the text if that is possible.

A similar line of discussion; what happens if the VMs author was too smart for their own good, as they say. They created a one-way 'methodology' - that is too complex to be reversed, without prior knowledge of the method. And not necessarily complex in the sense that is sophisticated and advanced, but rather that it is idiosyncratic.

Sophisticated and advanced can involve tricky mental manipulations. Idiosyncratic can include physical alterations, breaking a smaller text apart and distributing it within a larger manuscript. And then leaving clues as to how the hidden text can be reconstructed. But can the clues be recognized? The artist has demonstrated a sophisticated trickery based on social memes relevant to the C-14 dates, including heraldic canting, in the illustrations. Does this extend to the linguistic parts as well? Do Stolfi's markers have significance? They are either part of an intentional structure or they are useless. From the artistic side, they are clearly verified by historical and religious indicators despite their 'VMs style'.