- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
[split] Diplomatic ciphers
- [split] Diplomatic ciphers
-
RE: [split] Diplomatic ciphers
-JKP- > 09-04-2019, 10:22 AM
The problem with the term "atypical" Italian diplomatic cipher is that it's vague (it might be clear in your mind, Mark, but that doesn't mean everyone else can see what is in your head), and it's a moving target. People's ideas change all the time.
On Monday, a robin might be an "atypical" duck. On Thursday, an eagle might be an "atypical" duck. The ideas may change in your mind but we are still stuck with a vague term.
So, spell out what kind of cipher it is rather than calling it "atypical".
What is it and what is it not? Then let us decide if it has anything in common with a diplomatic cipher, rather than you deciding for us. -
RE: [split] Diplomatic ciphers
Mark Knowles > 09-04-2019, 12:58 PM
JKP: I have already explained to you aspects of how it could be similar, but different, yet this has either gone in one ear and out the other or you have not understood what I said. So I have not decided for you, but if you ignore my answers I can't help you. If you have not understood say so. If you are not really interested in knowing what my answer is then say so as well. Either way you seem rather obtuse. Do I need to copy and paste what I already written to you JKP? Sorry, but it is rather annoying when you ignore what I have written.
What I have described to you, JKP, certainly has a lot in common with standard diplomatic ciphers it is just not identical. The question of how similar is "similar" is a semantic question; I like to think of it as the size of the intellectual leap to get from one to the other, what I have described is a very small mental step. If the small mental step I have described is too much to warrant the term "atypical" that is ultimately your decision; I think it is. -
RE: [split] Diplomatic ciphers
Mark Knowles > 09-04-2019, 01:02 PM
I can see that I will have to start by producing some kind of example diplomatic style cipher key, so you understand what I am talking about, which will be a somewhat tedious task, but I will try. -
RE: [split] Diplomatic ciphers
Anton > 09-04-2019, 01:04 PM
Hi JKP and Mark, please keep the conversation in polite manner, no need for imperatives and discourtesy!
-
RE: [split] Diplomatic ciphers
Mark Knowles > 09-04-2019, 01:47 PM
Anton: I will try to, sorry! -
RE: [split] Diplomatic ciphers
-JKP- > 09-04-2019, 02:09 PM
I was not discourteous.
In fact, I was making an appeal for courtesy.
If Mark keeps to defined terms rather than vague terms, we'll get more out of reading his posts and he will get better feedback. -
RE: [split] Diplomatic ciphers
Mark Knowles > 09-04-2019, 03:13 PM
JKP: I am not sure that there are defined terms for precisely what I am talking about which is why I have endeavoured to describe them.
I will produce a diplomatic style cipher key to make it pretty clear what I am talking about, but it may take a little time.
The term string or sequence of characters would be self-explanatory I thought.
$ is a character
$#% is a sequence of characters
If I say the sequence of characters $#% corresponds to the letter A then I would hope that makes sense.
If I say the sequence of characters %&$@& corresponds to a null of nothing or empty text, however you want to describe it, then I would hope that makes sense.
In the diplomatic ciphers one is dealing with for example an individual character $ corresponds to a letter B or an individual character % corresponds to a null.
So the difference between the two is the extension of moving from using individual characters to sequences of characters, which to me is a very small change.
Placing empty spaces in the text in a way to subdivide it such that certain character arrangements always appear at the beginning and certain others always at the end could account for the perceived positionality i.e. does positionality really persist once blank spaces are removed from the text? Maybe we have the appearance of positionality where under the surface there really is none. There are other scenarios I can think of to account for the appearance of positionality in the context of a diplomatic type cipher. Again this is a small change. -
RE: [split] Diplomatic ciphers
-JKP- > 09-04-2019, 04:35 PM
(09-04-2019, 03:13 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
In the diplomatic ciphers one is dealing with for example an individual character $ corresponds to a letter B or an individual character % corresponds to a null.
...
Are you referring to the Italian diplomatic ciphers recorded by Tranchedino? It's not always individual character > single letter.
Sometimes there is more than one character/glyph used to represent an individual letter of the alphabet. Multiple characters are sometimes used for nulls, as well. In fact, glancing through the ciphers, sometimes three characters are used for a null.
Here are examples of multi-character letters from three different ciphers:
Cipher 1: v is enciphered as ee
Cipher 2: c is enciphered as ce d is enciphered as fa a is enciphered as bz
Cipher 3: several letters are enciphered as two-character Latin abbreviations
Here are examples of multi-character nulls from three of the ciphers:
Cipher nulls: la con no qu°modo
Cipher nulls: to, co, tz, om, am (there are also some single nulls and abbreviation-symbol nulls)
Cipher nulls: bbz dd do no vo ot ee hh cb cd ef eg ey (plus a couple of abbreviations) -
RE: [split] Diplomatic ciphers
Mark Knowles > 09-04-2019, 04:59 PM
JKP: What I am referring to is strings containing complex characters not ordinary letters of the alphabet, which are basically just normal words. Also I regard characters like the 4o where the characters are physically joined together as one character not a character sequence. I hope that is clearer, if not please ask.
I am talking about the Tranchedino, but not just the just the Tranchedino as I have seen quite a lot of other keys and cipher ledgers. But I am aware of what you are referring to and that is not quite what I am talking about.