Distinguishing Characters

[Mark Knowles]

And why does the situation of "fun" occur only once in the case of the Voynich manuscript and in no other documents.

If this is a serious question, you should get acquainted with medieval ciphers; the "fun" ones, not the "serious" diplomatic and military ones.

It was a serious question. Which other "fun" medieval ciphers are you referring to? Are you talking about the ciphers in Bischoff or are you referring to other ciphers?

Why weren't there other people developing complex ciphers for fun at that time?

How do you know? Have you seen everything that people wrote?

No I haven't. Have you? One can only go on the known data out there. I don't know of any other complex cipher developed for fun at that time. If you do please let me know about them.

Again you still have this notion of Voynichese having no antecedence and having just emerged out of the blue.

I don't. If there were antecedents, they are lost. If not, there is a first for everything.

How do you know they are lost? Have you made any effort to look for them?

It seems just too convenient to say that all antecedents are lost to history. My own suspicion is that these precursors to your anti-polybius, like the anti-polybius itself, never existed in the first place.

You still have the notion that the VM emerged from diplomatic ciphers, without any evidence of a link (4o doesn't count: symbols are arbitrary), and despite a mountain of real, quantifiable differences.

What is your strictly utilitarian, no fun whatsoever, explanation for this:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

How much do you know about diplomatic ciphers?