28-08-2022, 07:46 AM
It is not unusual for documents in cipher to have an entry for the key or keys.
However, in all such cases that I am aware of, the cipher is a simple substitution, and the key consists of a character translation table.
We already know that that won't work.
In fact, the Voynich MS has exactly such a table on f1r, and because we know that this can't work, it is generally believed not to be the key, but to be a decipherer's failed attempt.
After all these years, I have no concept what a 'key' for the Voynich MS might look like, but it won't be a simple or homopohonic character substitution table.
More on the topic of this thread, while it may seem a logical step to consider that the author of the Voynich MS could be someone in the forefront of cipher develpment, this is actually speculation, and there are quite a few good reasons (though none I would call prohibitive) why this is not necessarily logical. Some examples:
- a top cipher developer would know very well that it is a very bad idea to encrypt a very long text with a single method/key
- a brother of a top cipher developer would not necessarily have access to such secrets. (If my brother had access to state secrets, I would most definitely NOT know them).
I do wish to add that I consider the on-going search for lost cipher keys and cipher text of significant interest by itself.
However, in all such cases that I am aware of, the cipher is a simple substitution, and the key consists of a character translation table.
We already know that that won't work.
In fact, the Voynich MS has exactly such a table on f1r, and because we know that this can't work, it is generally believed not to be the key, but to be a decipherer's failed attempt.
After all these years, I have no concept what a 'key' for the Voynich MS might look like, but it won't be a simple or homopohonic character substitution table.
More on the topic of this thread, while it may seem a logical step to consider that the author of the Voynich MS could be someone in the forefront of cipher develpment, this is actually speculation, and there are quite a few good reasons (though none I would call prohibitive) why this is not necessarily logical. Some examples:
- a top cipher developer would know very well that it is a very bad idea to encrypt a very long text with a single method/key
- a brother of a top cipher developer would not necessarily have access to such secrets. (If my brother had access to state secrets, I would most definitely NOT know them).
I do wish to add that I consider the on-going search for lost cipher keys and cipher text of significant interest by itself.