(31-01-2018, 07:45 PM)Koen Gh. wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Rene: [...] What I mean is though, that Voynichese being the result of a one-way cipher is not compatible with linguistic solutions like we see proposed here.
Well, one has to be careful. I have not seen any acceptable linguistic solution, so these should not be used to judge whether a one-way cipher is unlikely.
At the same time, the authors of this paper propose that anagramming has been used. This is done at the word level.
While they can resolve many or most words using their computer algorithms, this would not have been possible for a human, within a reasonable amount of time.
Farmerjohn is right about the irreversibility. Even anagramming according to specified rules may be irreversible, such as sorting the characters alphabetically.
Furthermore, irreversible is not an absolute thing, as already indicated about w.r.t computer vs. human.
Finally, the anagramming at the word level is a special case. If one uses (a computer and) a dictionary, it no longer matters if the anagramming was done arbitrarily or according to some rule. The only problem is if several plain text words use the same set of characters ( 'greens' and 'genres' in their example).
*IF* the Voynich MS was anagrammed in this manner, at the word level, it would certainly have been according to some rule. Otherwise, the Zipf law would no longer be observed.
