Voynichese is a numeric cipher?

[Jorge_Stolfi]

It seems very strange to me that Stolfi keeps mentioning the Chinese language everywhere and making hints. It looks like obsession, to be honest. Excuse me  

Well, I am now totally convinced that SPS=SBJ.  Like I am convinced that the Earth is round.  Would you call the latter "an obsession" too?

As for mentioning it here: in my excuse, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. when I plotted the histogram of Voynichese word lengths and saw that it had a perfectly symmetric shape with a simple mathematical formula. And I pivoted to the Chinese theory because of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. -- while trying to use that plot to prove that Voynichese was a codebook cipher.

Roman numerals cover these [properties of Voynichese] by default.

Indeed, as I mentioned in that old page.

Considering only the statistical data, a codebook cipher with a funky "Roman-like" number system is still a possibility.  

The reason why I don't believe it is a codebook cipher (apart form my conviction that SPS=SBJ)  is common sense.  Encoding and decoding with such a cipher is very slow and tiresome, and I can't imagine why the Author would have chosen to do that.

All the best, --stolfi

[JoJo_Jost]

Sorry, Stolfi, that I'm writing this.

The degree of conviction increases the more one engages with a theory—that’s a typically human phenomenon.

The biggest problem with people is that they’re all so incredibly convinced of their convictions.

What’s weird, though, is that so many others are anything but convinced. Are they all stupid?

One thing’s for sure: you haven’t managed to convince the masses yet, and that would make me suspicious.

[Linda]

Sorry, Stolfi, that I'm writing this.

The degree of conviction increases the more one engages with a theory—that’s a typically human phenomenon.

The biggest problem with people is that they’re all so incredibly convinced of their convictions.

What’s weird, though, is that so many others are anything but convinced. Are they all stupid?

One thing’s for sure: you haven’t managed to convince the masses yet, and that would make me suspicious.

My main problem is that the SPS = SBJ but the rest of the words can't be mapped? Just a few cribs, as I understand it. Isn't that a problem?

[JoJo_Jost]

My main problem is that the SPS = SBJ but the rest of the words can't be mapped? Just a few cribs, as I understand it. Isn't that a problem?

Sorry, Linda—this isn't really the right thread to discuss this; I don't want to derail Olololo's thread with this topic.  
So I'll keep it very brief:Yes, that's one point, and there are many other issues as well; the discussion covers a very broad range of topics.

[ololololo]

Like I am convinced that the Earth is round.

Well, I’m completely sure that the Earth is round. I don’t prove to flat‑earthers that it’s round because I don’t see the point. In this case, there’s no need to even appeal to any scientific evidence.
You’re trying to talk about China almost everywhere, and the only evidence you have is the Red Rooster recipe. It would be more interesting to hear about other recipes and statistical comparisons between the entire SPS and SBJ texts than to rely on the unprovable theory of the Chinese dictator (I remember that it’s just a hypothesis, but you cling to it as if it were flawless, even though you could find a wealth of contradictions).

a codebook cipher

Purely theoretically, it’s possible to use it. The question is how one can even create a book cipher for a book of that size, and make it work flawlessly. So I don’t believe in it either.

[eggyk]

The reason why I don't believe it is a codebook cipher (apart form my conviction that SPS=SBJ)  is common sense.  Encoding and decoding with such a cipher is very slow and tiresome, and I can't imagine why the Author would have chosen to do that.

People do things of monumental effort all the time, often for no reason other than simply wanting to do so. If the author enjoyed creating and writing in their cipher, it's no longer tiresome - it's just a hobby. 

I'm not sure why we treat 15th century human beings as purely rational creatures that would only do things in a utilitarian way. The exact opposite is normally the case. Why did people spend hours engraving their items, or carving animals from wood? Why decorate a plate that otherwise is fully functional, isn't that also slow and tiresome compared to doing nothing? 

Or taking a different angle, why do people climb tall buildings today, or swim across large open bodies of water? Often just to see whether they can. 

Genuinely, if your conviction is based on human beings always acting with common sense I think that is unwise. As my dad often tells me, common sense ain't that common.

[ololololo]

I'm not sure why we treat 15th century human beings as purely rational creatures that would only do things in a utilitarian way

Oh, I remembered You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. They work very quickly, but unfortunately, they’re impractical to use.
Overall, you’re right that a person is capable of anything, but it’s important to understand that, taken together, creating a single book cipher is incredibly difficult. And if we’re talking about a cipher (which means we’re implying the purpose of encryption), then we come to the point that complex ciphers are impractical to use because they’re redundant.
It’s the same as if you were preparing a culinary masterpiece for breakfast. You may want to do it, you may be able to do it, but your laziness will convince you to order a pizza...

[eggyk]

Overall, you’re right that a person is capable of anything, but it’s important to understand that, taken together, creating a single book cipher is incredibly difficult. And if we’re talking about a cipher (which means we’re implying the purpose of encryption), then we come to the point that complex ciphers are impractical to use because they’re redundant.
It’s the same as if you were preparing a culinary masterpiece for breakfast. You may want to do it, you may be able to do it, but your laziness will convince you to order a pizza...

Yet the fact is that many people still choose to create culinary masterpieces for breakfast. Some dedicate their life to it. 

For example, we can imagine a hypothetical scenario where someone decides to create an extremely difficult to break cipher, and write a book in the ciphertext. The motivation could simply be to show others "hey look, I encrypted a whole book! I guarantee you can't decrypt it! It's surely impossible". 

In fact, that's basically the exact same premise as You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. today. It must take a lot of effort to craft these exercises, and it's also quite difficult and time consuming to solve many of them, yet they continue to be created, and people continue to try and solve them. 

Furthermore, an even better example is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., which has only been 3/4 solved by the best cryptanalysts in the world. To deliberately make something so unbreakable (yet made to be technically solvable) must have taken lots of time and effort, and people have dedicated years to solving it with limited success. In that case, using a difficult cipher was clearly part of the premise, as it was not meant to be easily solved. It's an art! 

The VMS could easily be a similar example; perhaps the length of the book is relevant to the cipher, or perhaps the imagery is used somehow, or it's made of different sections with different ciphers. I'm just speculating obviously, but hopefully you get what I mean.

[Jorge_Stolfi]

For example, we can imagine a hypothetical scenario where someone decides to create an extremely difficult to break cipher, and write a book in the ciphertext. The motivation could simply be to show others "hey look, I encrypted a whole book! I guarantee you can't decrypt it! It's surely impossible".

There are in fact notable historical examples of that.  I recall one from the 15th century (give or take a century) that was cracked only a couple decades ago.  Another one was reportedly written by Raphael Mnishovsky, who is to blame for the "Bacon" meme and was (or wanted to be) a professional cryptographer. But I don't know whether the latter survived.

Still, I don't think that such a "demo" book would waste so much work and vellum on all those plant drawings and cosmo diagrams.

All the best, --stolfi

[ololololo]

Such discussions boil down to one question: “Is this possible?.” I simply answer it like this: Yes, but at the same time, No. Yes, it could be a codebook cipher, but at the same time, it might not be. Yes, it could be Chinese, but there are nuances.

It would be more interesting to create a book cipher similar to this one.

VMS is already something unusual in itself.