(18-10-2026, 01:30 AM)RadioFM wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Glyph-to-glyph consistency you mean? What about word-to-word consistency? Yeah...
You got it backwards: a cipher like that is anachronistic, meanwhile Gaskell & Bowern showed that certain individuals naturally gravitate to patterns seen in the VMS when penning gibberish. European cryptography well up to 15th century usually didn't cause horizontal/vertical reduplication patterns the likes of which we see in the VMS. You go ahead and try your best at a homophonic system, you'll soon end up in a spaghetti of rules, ambiguous parsing and perhaps even arbitrary anagramming before getting half as close as self-citation does. This is what everyone and their grandma have been trying the last 100 years, if not more.
The usual pipeline of meaningful solution goes: You make some homophonic system that kinda matches expected labels → You tackle a text page and get gibberish → You ammend the system with 99 variations to fit the text pages → You go to Rosettes and get gibberish yet again.
1. No one can produce 240 pages of gibberish with such a clear structure without a system, a generator, or something similar. Seriously, take a closer look at the structure of the VMS, and you’ll see that no one can do that! In the test, participants were supposed to fill three (!!!) pages with incorrect, meaningless text. The VMS comprises approximately 240 pages. Long-term consistency across sections—and variations within sections regarding Currier A/B and line positions- cannot be tested with just three pages. Neither glyph-to-glyph consistency nor word consistency can be verified. No one has ever provided proof that anyone can do this, and it will never be possible.
2. I just happened to point out in my thread that Alberti spoke of swapping letters, consonant clusters, and words within one or more lines. Such a system would be capable of producing repetitive sequences.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
3. I hope it’s okay for me to write this here as a response: I’ve managed to achieve a lot of repetitions quite naturally in my generators for the VBM—why? Because in the VMS, I tend to resolve the tokens at the level of consonant clusters in relation to vowels. Consonants and vowels naturally repeat much more frequently in speech than words do.
Example: “My papa loves bananas.”
pa pa / an an a
I also provided evidence there that, with the VBM, the phrase “real 4 times qokedy in a row” can be read as a perfectly normal sentence if you break it down to the syllable level. So, what u’re saying there isn’t true.
If you’re interested: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. -85056.html#pid85056
But the crucial difference is this: At least 99 percent of solvers try to solve the VMS at the token level. If you look at the dependencies between the last letter of one token and the first letter of the next, it’s nearly impossible for these tokens to correspond to words. Only when you realize that spaces cannot be spaces can you crack the cipher.
In that thread, I also showed that all the tools needed for this were already known in principle as early as the 15th century. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.