06-06-2019, 10:11 AM
The repeating words or characters can be explained in many different ways, as one can see when one takes another text than that of the VMS.
a) One could take an similar other manuscript text and compare those results with any results one has gathered on the VMS.
Of course you should apply the same logic and methods for both and compare the results.
Then when you are happy at one point, look at the total counts. (counting total letters, bigrams etc.)
You will see that there is a big difference between the unique words/bigrams/trigrams/f.a. etc. counts. The only way to solve that is to remove letters until the count of uniques diminishes. However, doing so, in a sufficient manner will finally lead to a text where almost every letter has been removed. That final text that is left over has no sensible meaning or can not be deciphered into a meaningful text (yet).
b) A possible explanation of such behavior of the VMS text, as we see it, is the "random" insertion of characters.
Since that is the exact opposite of the method a) proposed, that also has no significant intrinsic meaning for the text as a whole.
This is what under discussion here and is using an approach that can only be validated by proving the opposite as written in a)
From the perspective of a "codebreaker" (one that has knowledge in decipherment) there is little difference in the text in b) and the text in a) because we can see, count and compare the text specifics at any point with any language.
An example for those faint of heart:
a) removal method: the lazy fox jumps -> remove vowels -> th lz fx jmps _ remove low freq. ltrs -> thlfmps
b) insertion method: thlfmps -> tah alaf amaps
a) One could take an similar other manuscript text and compare those results with any results one has gathered on the VMS.
Of course you should apply the same logic and methods for both and compare the results.
Then when you are happy at one point, look at the total counts. (counting total letters, bigrams etc.)
You will see that there is a big difference between the unique words/bigrams/trigrams/f.a. etc. counts. The only way to solve that is to remove letters until the count of uniques diminishes. However, doing so, in a sufficient manner will finally lead to a text where almost every letter has been removed. That final text that is left over has no sensible meaning or can not be deciphered into a meaningful text (yet).
b) A possible explanation of such behavior of the VMS text, as we see it, is the "random" insertion of characters.
Since that is the exact opposite of the method a) proposed, that also has no significant intrinsic meaning for the text as a whole.
This is what under discussion here and is using an approach that can only be validated by proving the opposite as written in a)
From the perspective of a "codebreaker" (one that has knowledge in decipherment) there is little difference in the text in b) and the text in a) because we can see, count and compare the text specifics at any point with any language.
An example for those faint of heart:
a) removal method: the lazy fox jumps -> remove vowels -> th lz fx jmps _ remove low freq. ltrs -> thlfmps
b) insertion method: thlfmps -> tah alaf amaps