09-04-2019, 03:13 PM
JKP: I am not sure that there are defined terms for precisely what I am talking about which is why I have endeavoured to describe them.
I will produce a diplomatic style cipher key to make it pretty clear what I am talking about, but it may take a little time.
The term string or sequence of characters would be self-explanatory I thought.
$ is a character
$#% is a sequence of characters
If I say the sequence of characters $#% corresponds to the letter A then I would hope that makes sense.
If I say the sequence of characters %&$@& corresponds to a null of nothing or empty text, however you want to describe it, then I would hope that makes sense.
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.
So the difference between the two is the extension of moving from using individual characters to sequences of characters, which to me is a very small change.
Placing empty spaces in the text in a way to subdivide it such that certain character arrangements always appear at the beginning and certain others always at the end could account for the perceived positionality i.e. does positionality really persist once blank spaces are removed from the text? Maybe we have the appearance of positionality where under the surface there really is none. There are other scenarios I can think of to account for the appearance of positionality in the context of a diplomatic type cipher. Again this is a small change.
I will produce a diplomatic style cipher key to make it pretty clear what I am talking about, but it may take a little time.
The term string or sequence of characters would be self-explanatory I thought.
$ is a character
$#% is a sequence of characters
If I say the sequence of characters $#% corresponds to the letter A then I would hope that makes sense.
If I say the sequence of characters %&$@& corresponds to a null of nothing or empty text, however you want to describe it, then I would hope that makes sense.
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.
So the difference between the two is the extension of moving from using individual characters to sequences of characters, which to me is a very small change.
Placing empty spaces in the text in a way to subdivide it such that certain character arrangements always appear at the beginning and certain others always at the end could account for the perceived positionality i.e. does positionality really persist once blank spaces are removed from the text? Maybe we have the appearance of positionality where under the surface there really is none. There are other scenarios I can think of to account for the appearance of positionality in the context of a diplomatic type cipher. Again this is a small change.