+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Voynich Talk (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-6.html)
+--- Thread: [split] Diplomatic ciphers (/thread-2732.html)
RE: [split] Diplomatic ciphers - -JKP- - 09-04-2019
(09-04-2019, 04:59 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.JKP: What I am referring to is strings containing complex characters not ordinary letters of the alphabet, which are basically just normal words. Also I regard characters like the 4o where the characters are physically joined together as one character not a character sequence. I hope that is clearer, if not please ask.
What do you mean by complex characters? If you mean sequences of Latin abbreviation symbols, those exist too, they are just harder to paste into forum posts.
The Italian diplomatic ciphers are both many-to-one and one-to-many. There was no prohibition on a letter being represented by only one symbol/character.
RE: [split] Diplomatic ciphers - Mark Knowles - 09-04-2019
JKP: Lets not get into latin abbreviations that is a separate topic.
It appears again we are talking at cross purposes. I will have to create an example of a diplomatic style cipher key illustrating what I mean plus an example implementation of that cipher key to make it crystal clear. That will require a certain amount of effort on my part, but I would hope I can do this by the end of the week.
RE: [split] Diplomatic ciphers - -JKP- - 09-04-2019
Mark, you said that the diplomatic characters map with one character to one letter. Here is your statement again:
Quote:In the diplomatic ciphers one is dealing with for example an individual character $ corresponds to a letter B or an individual character % corresponds to a null.
I gave examples from actual diplomatic ciphers that map several characters to one letter and which map several characters to a null. This occurs with symbols, with letters of the alphabet, and with Latin abbreviations. Regardless of which one is used, one cannot generalize that diplomatic ciphers are constructed in the way you described in that statement.
I am very interested in ciphers, including the diplomatic ciphers, so I would love to discuss it, but we need correct statements in order to go forward.
RE: [split] Diplomatic ciphers - Mark Knowles - 09-04-2019
JKP: It is important to appreciate that I have looked in detail at the cipher keys in the Tranchedino, the about 27 cipher keys in the complete Urbino cipher ledger from the Vatican archive(Not just the 3 Nick has posted), all the 15th century and late 14th century cipher keys in the 2 Meister books, all the cipher keys in "La Diplomazia..." by Lydia Cerioni, plus cipher keys from other sources(particularly the pre-tranchedino cipher keys in the Milan State Archives). I am also chasing up other cipher keys.
I say this just to make it clear that if you have spotted a feature in a diplomatic cipher key in the Tranchedino I have almost certainly observed it there and very likely elsewhere too. So it would probably be easiest for you to assume as much as it will help you to guess what I am not referring to. I don't say this to be rude just to give you the idea that when it comes to diplomatic ciphers what you are familiar with I am very likely to be familiar with.
RE: [split] Diplomatic ciphers - -JKP- - 09-04-2019
If you were to say, "In a simple substitution cipher, one is dealing with for example an individual character $ corresponds to a letter B or an individual character % corresponds to a null."
I would not argue with that. But you specifically referenced diplomatic ciphers, which makes it an incorrect statement.
What really stands out about the Italian diplomatic ciphers is that almost all of them (perhaps all of them) are many-to-one ciphers and quite a number are also one-to-many.
This is important, because it is the primary reason why they require so many symbols to represent one cipher and also why the characters shuffle around within the words to such an extent as they do.
RE: [split] Diplomatic ciphers - Mark Knowles - 09-04-2019
JKP: I think we are probably talking at cross purposes. What you often and probably always view, it seems, as a series of characters I view as an individual character.
RE: [split] Diplomatic ciphers - -JKP- - 09-04-2019
(09-04-2019, 05:44 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.JKP: I think we are probably talking at cross purposes. What you often and probably always view, it seems, as a series of characters I view as an individual character.
So you view "quomodo" (which is one of the diplomatic-code nulls) as a single character.
Do you honestly think if you had a conversation with someone about diplomatic ciphers that they would know that you were counting seven letters as an individual character? That is what your statement implies. Your statement implies that a one-to-one substitution can be ANY NUMBER OF CHARACTERS because you, personally, count it as one character.
A single "reference" or a single "correspondence" would be understood, but calling "quomodo" (or any of the other character combinations, whether they are symbols or numbers or letters) a "single character" in your personal system is always going to result in miscommunication, and not just with me.
RE: [split] Diplomatic ciphers - Mark Knowles - 09-04-2019
JKP: I fear we are going around in circles and only a cipher key plus example text will explain this. I have not seen any cipher key of the kind I need to show you and yet it fits closely in the diplomatic cipher mold even if it is a little different.
RE: [split] Diplomatic ciphers - Mark Knowles - 09-04-2019
JKP: I don't think we will make any progress unless I put quite a bit of time producing an example cipher key and text showing what I mean.
RE: [split] Diplomatic ciphers - Mark Knowles - 09-04-2019
JKP: It will probably take me some time to produce my example as I will probably also have to explain step by step how to encrypt my example text. If you don't understand what I am talking about then I can't see how you ever will, to be honest. However there is no reason whatever for you not to understand it as it is not that complicated, so I don't really see why we are having this impasse.