16-08-2016, 07:38 PM
I agree that it is important to know which definition of 'cipher' is used by the researcher in question.
For example, the difference between a one-to-one cipher and a transcription to a different alphabet is merely one of intent. If someone comes up with a new alphabet to be able to write in a foreign language, I wouldn't call the result a cipher. There was no intention to hide or obscure.
So when experts say: the VM is not a cipher, what exactly do they mean?
That is why in case of doubt, it would be useful to provide a direct quote.
(The same goes for expert statements about goats and calenders).
For example, the difference between a one-to-one cipher and a transcription to a different alphabet is merely one of intent. If someone comes up with a new alphabet to be able to write in a foreign language, I wouldn't call the result a cipher. There was no intention to hide or obscure.
So when experts say: the VM is not a cipher, what exactly do they mean?
That is why in case of doubt, it would be useful to provide a direct quote.
(The same goes for expert statements about goats and calenders).