(23-03-2026, 07:32 AM)Walter Mandron wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Yes, I know that this has been described here; the resemblance to Llull is very striking and fits the time period—it would be a miracle if no one had noticed it yet.
But my theory isn't based on the idea that Llull's wheels encrypted the manuscript. It's based on the theory that there was no text to be encrypted—it isn't even an encryption.
Walter, I don't want to be boring, but it does not matter if the text was encrypted from a plaintext using combinatorial 'wheels' (I never implied this, btw) or if it's gibberish generated by combinatorial 'wheels'. The problem is still there: find a set of 'wheels' which generate meaningless text (or encrypt a plaintext) giving as result a text comparable to the Voynich. Your idea is surely possible, but many had the same idea before, and it's as possible as thousands different ones. You need something more than an idea, you need to flesh it out (ay, there's the rub).
(23-03-2026, 07:32 AM)Walter Mandron wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The elegance of this theory does not lie in the fact that it explains a few things. It lies in the fact that it explains everything at once —the statistics, the structure, the illustrations, the illegibility, the disappearance
But does it? I grant you it explains illegibility and disappearance, but they are very easy to get at, while I'm not convinced at all it explains the statistics and the structure (I can't remember which explanation your theory gives to illustrations). Illegibility is easy to get, statistics and structure are not. Yes, some combinatorial device (with or without 'wheels') might explain them (and many people tried this way before you, everyone failing), but you need to build one and show it works before you can say 'this is the solution'.