I like your definition of stateful one-to-many additive ciphers. 
But this definition needs an introduction. I have the nagging feeling that to the general population of Voynicheros we, who are interested in this sort of thing, sound like total weirdos, given the fact that such stateful ciphers are not known to have existed in the 15th century.
The interesting property is that the same chunk of ciphertext does not necessarily represent the same plaintext, which addresses the difficulty of converting a babble-like stream of similar words to something that looks less strange: daiin daiin may not be a repetition after all.
Conversely, different ciphertexts can be generated for the same plaintext, a property shared with homophonic substitution ciphers, but they need more symbols than letters and this does not seem to be the case in the VMS: the set of common glyphs is as small as the Latin alphabet.
As a result these ciphers destroy most of the evidence of word co-occurrence that are expected in a meaningful text. And this is exactly what is found in word pair statistics of the VMS: see the Word Pair Permutation Analysis by Marke Fincher or the published article from last year's Voynich conference: An Analysis of the Relationship between Words within the Voynich Manuscript by Andrew Caruana, Colin Layfield and John Abela.
Quote:My present primary area of investigation in the Voynich manuscript is stateful one-to-many additive ciphers that operate on character by character basis. These ciphers encode the plaintext characters one by one or in small groups, appending the result to the ciphertext and possibly keeping track of some internal state, and any character or a combination of characters in the plaintext can map to several possible ciphertexts (by choice or based on the internal state).
But this definition needs an introduction. I have the nagging feeling that to the general population of Voynicheros we, who are interested in this sort of thing, sound like total weirdos, given the fact that such stateful ciphers are not known to have existed in the 15th century.
The interesting property is that the same chunk of ciphertext does not necessarily represent the same plaintext, which addresses the difficulty of converting a babble-like stream of similar words to something that looks less strange: daiin daiin may not be a repetition after all.
Conversely, different ciphertexts can be generated for the same plaintext, a property shared with homophonic substitution ciphers, but they need more symbols than letters and this does not seem to be the case in the VMS: the set of common glyphs is as small as the Latin alphabet.
As a result these ciphers destroy most of the evidence of word co-occurrence that are expected in a meaningful text. And this is exactly what is found in word pair statistics of the VMS: see the Word Pair Permutation Analysis by Marke Fincher or the published article from last year's Voynich conference: An Analysis of the Relationship between Words within the Voynich Manuscript by Andrew Caruana, Colin Layfield and John Abela.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)