[split] Diplomatic ciphers

[-JKP-]

---

Mark: 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.

The next time you refer to multiple characters as an "individual character", all you have to do is let us know that you actually mean multiple characters and then there will be no misunderstandings.

[Mark Knowles]

JKP: Do you think the 4o joined-up symbol is one character or two or more? To me it is one character as it is joined up and it operates on its own. You could regard some Voynich symbols as multiple characters or just one. The more complex Voynich symbols I view as one character, but maybe you think they are many.

[Mark Knowles]

JKP: You could view the 4o as three characters joined up:

<  |  o

However I describe it as one character as it is one unit. I hope this makes it a little clearer.

[-JKP-]

If it's a group of characters that function together as a unit, there's nothing wrong with calling it a sequence or some other term that expresses its "grouped" status, but to refer to it as an individual character is very misleading, especially in the world of ciphers where terms like many-to-one, one-to-many, and many-to-many are accepted concepts and where the concept of "individual character" does not mean multiple characters.

You could use symbol-sequence, combination-glyph, token, or some other term that expresses the multiplicity of the grouped symbols. There are many ways it could be expressed more clearly.


In ciphers, this distinction matters, because many-to-one is a way of deliberately obfuscating the underlying text. When you express one character with three, it's a way of hiding the information and making it harder to decrypt.

---

JKP: You could view the 4o as three characters joined up:

<  |  o

However I describe it as one character as it is one unit. I hope this makes it a little clearer.

You didn't say "one unit", you said "individual character". I think "one unit" is a better way of describing it.

[Mark Knowles]

JKP: Given your preferred terminology, then I am talking about a sequence of units. I hope you understand better.

Frankly the precise meaning of the word "character" could be interpreted in different ways given the dictionary definition. You view the meaning in one way and I another, but ultimately it is semantics.

[Mark Knowles]

JKP: So I am talking about a sequence of units mapping to a letter of the alphabet.

---

JKP: Where again a unit means a sequence of what you call characters.

[Mark Knowles]

JKP: A sequence of units could be 2 or more, so it could be as little as a sequence of 2 units.

---

JKP: This would mean the true deciphered Voynich  text could be significantly shorter where some or all of the spaces are also removed.

[MarcoP]

What are the distinctive features of XV Century diplomatic ciphers?
Any agreed definition?

[ReneZ]

There is one distinctive feature that is never mentioned, but it is very important.

These ciphers were used to encode individual documents / communications between two persons, or two very small groups of persons. Both sides had the 'key'. They could have several such keys and would need to know which one to apply. (Nowadays, communication of the 'key' is more difficult than communication of the encoded message.)

These ciphers would not be used just to encode something without having a very specific, very well-identified recipient in mind.

It is left to Mark to explain how this fits with his theory, and with the possible purpose of the Voynich MS.

[Mark Knowles]

Rene: I started to write a much longer reply which I will try to post when it is finished. However here is a quick answer, on the basis of my authorship hypothesis we are dealing with someone with a very strong background particular through his family, but also early training in diplomatic ciphers who later followed a different career path and interests of the kind we see in the Voynich. I think the Voynich is probably a text broadly akin to Giovanni Fontana's enciphered manuscript, which only has a simple substitution cipher, but which was produced instead with a much more complex cipher from someone with intimidate connections to the research and development of diplomatic ciphers in the Milan chancellery during a period which my research shows was a period of significant cipher advances.

---

JKP & Rene: A sequence of a few "units" could map to a null or nothing.