- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT (well, sort of)
- IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT (well, sort of)
-
RE: IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT (well, sort of)
RadioFM > 05-02-2026, 02:35 PM
Fingers crossed! If you don't mind my asking, are you expecting a bit of skepticism about this new observation, or are you confident most of the forum will largely agree with it?
Without giving it away, is it some hard fact we can easily check by, say, crunching some numbers (e.g. coverage of a new grammar for Voynichese), or does the observation come about from softer skills? -
RE: IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT (well, sort of)
Juan_Sali > 05-02-2026, 02:44 PM
AMANUENSIS DIE ?
-
RE: IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT (well, sort of)
Jorge_Stolfi > 05-02-2026, 04:26 PM
(05-02-2026, 02:35 PM)RadioFM Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If you don't mind my asking, are you expecting a bit of skepticism about this new observation, or are you confident most of the forum will largely agree with it?
Judging by past reactions, yes, I expect that some people will not accept it easily. That is why I must write the arguments in detail, and arrange the data so that anyone can check them. It will take a few days more...
I can advance that it will refute the theory that it is a modern forgery. (Sorry, Rich.) But it does not confirm or refute the Standard Provenance Theory, either; and does change my probability of serious foul play by Wilfrid.
All the best, --stolfi -
RE: IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT (well, sort of)
proto57 > 05-02-2026, 05:19 PM
-
RE: IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT (well, sort of)
asteckley > 05-02-2026, 05:39 PM
(03-02-2026, 11:52 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Overall, I don't think anagrams are an effective way of proving/verifying priority nowadays.
I don't think the practice was ever thought to be the best one available, even at the time. (Even before modern cryptography, one could easily have placed a wax-sealed clear text summary of one's solution into the hands of an honest authority such as a judge or clergyman.) It was basically the Renaissance version of a Provisional Patent, but I suspect it was always considered somewhat recreational. -
RE: IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT (well, sort of)
proto57 > 05-02-2026, 07:30 PM
(05-02-2026, 05:39 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(03-02-2026, 11:52 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Overall, I don't think anagrams are an effective way of proving/verifying priority nowadays.
I don't think the practice was ever thought to be the best one available, even at the time. (Even before modern cryptography, one could easily have placed a wax-sealed clear text summary of one's solution into the hands of an honest authority such as a judge or clergyman.) It was basically the Renaissance version of a Provisional Patent, but I suspect it was always considered somewhat recreational.
Of course, in addition to claiming precedence, it was used to hide secrets for various other reasons. We all remember Roger Bacon using it to (supposedly) hide the formula and proportions for making gunpowder, with, "LURU VOPO VIR CAN UTRIET", which was rearranged in 1904 to read, "R. VII PART. V NOV. CORUL. V ET SULPHURIS". According to AI (I was really going to remember all this??), this meant:
Google AI Wrote:R. VII PART: Recipe VII partes (Take 7 parts of saltpeter).
V NOV. CORUL: V novellae coruli (5 parts of young hazel wood/charcoal).
V ET SULPHURIS: V et sulphuris (5 parts of sulphur).
Bacon used this cipher to protect the dangerous secret, which he described as creating "thunder and lightning"
I referenced this in my 2025 post, "Pitfalls of Decipherment": You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
... along with Newbold's famous failure with anagram attempts:
proto57 Wrote:3) Anagrams: Similar to the above, if any string of plain text results needs to be reordered to derive meaning, the chance are the derived meaning is purely speculative on the part of the decipherer. It is true that anagrams have historically been used to hide information, but rarely used to hide it in a way that another person could readily derive the meaning without help. This is a common misconception about various historic uses of anagrams, such as those by Roger Bacon and Galileo. They were using anagrams to insert a “watermark” of sorts in the test, so that they could later reveal that they were privy to some knowledge, so that they could later claim precedence to that knowledge, but without revealing it to unwanted eyes. But the purpose was not for another party to discern the meaning on their own, as it needed help from the creator to find it.
But if for whatever reason anagrams might be suspected, after only a few characters the possible translations quickly rises beyond any sensible use of hiding plain text, since many alternate plain texts can be derived from even short strings of plaintext characters. This means it becomes purely subjective, and almost from the start of the process. This was one of the pitfalls that William Romaine Newbold fell into, when attempting to decipher the Voynich Manuscript cipher text. He derived long strings of characters, from which he, or really anyone, could assemble some resemblance of meaningful text. Newbold was assuming Roger Bacon content, however, and so he manipulated his anagrams until he found it.
Basically, anagrams were used to protect information, for either claims of propriety secrets (as pointed out often in this thread), or to protect information dangerous to the writer, or to the public, and so on. But as a means to hide information with ANY hope that it could later be found by another party, no, and more and greater "no" the longer they get. -
RE: IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT (well, sort of)
eggyk > 05-02-2026, 08:25 PM
(03-02-2026, 11:52 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Overall, I don't think anagrams are an effective way of proving/verifying priority nowadays.
Considering we're living in a world where these conversations are timestamped, I would say so. The most effective way to verify priority is to ... be the first to post it?
If i happen across Jorge's discovery and post it today, I don't care what that anagram says; I got there first!
(I haven't discovered anything, i'm 99.99% sure) -
RE: IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT (well, sort of)
Koen G > 05-02-2026, 10:18 PM
Usually when I find something, I'm pretty quick to post it to the forum. The input of others can be valuable in many ways. For insights, but also for realty checks, which are essential in our field. -
RE: IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT (well, sort of)
zachary.kaelan > 05-02-2026, 10:29 PM
(05-02-2026, 04:26 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Judging by past reactions, yes, I expect that some people will not accept it easily.
(05-02-2026, 04:26 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.does change my probability of serious foul play by Wilfrid.
I'm guessing something in support of your book switch theory then. -
RE: IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT (well, sort of)
oshfdk > 05-02-2026, 10:59 PM
This feels almost as good as trying to make sense of the manuscript itself