MY 340
Moderators: Bullitt, Aud8us, Michael Butterfield, johnny5
Re: MY 340
by ALisowsky » Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:59 pm
Traveller,
Oops, you're right on the last one! I was kind of in a hurry (as you can tell by the horrible graphic). I originally did it not thinking clearly... assuming the period was simply a mark, not a symbol representing anything.. but once I thought about it I realized in order for it to work in a bifid, it has to have a letter representation to be involved in the period. As such, it's possible he could have cut that off to make the cipher symmetric (17x20), but we are certainly not to the point to assume that yet.
As far as the odd periods, I did purposefully include the period symbol at the beginning and the end, in order to make it an even period for factor/natural purposes. However, it is definitely possible that the period is not included in any of the groupings... your guess is as good as mine. I will take some time and try to draw up a new and improved graphic based on your correction to hopefully make it clearer!
Thanks!
Adam
Oops, you're right on the last one! I was kind of in a hurry (as you can tell by the horrible graphic). I originally did it not thinking clearly... assuming the period was simply a mark, not a symbol representing anything.. but once I thought about it I realized in order for it to work in a bifid, it has to have a letter representation to be involved in the period. As such, it's possible he could have cut that off to make the cipher symmetric (17x20), but we are certainly not to the point to assume that yet.
As far as the odd periods, I did purposefully include the period symbol at the beginning and the end, in order to make it an even period for factor/natural purposes. However, it is definitely possible that the period is not included in any of the groupings... your guess is as good as mine. I will take some time and try to draw up a new and improved graphic based on your correction to hopefully make it clearer!
Thanks!
Adam
Re: MY 340
by JayKay » Tue Nov 01, 2011 2:52 pm
Hi,
as I am a quite new member I am not sure if I should post on this topic. Let's see. I've tried to find an approach by doing bigram and trigram analyses. I posted one of my solutions on the Austrian Mensa Journal but no one is interested in such things. So I'll ask you to let me know what you think:
[img][/img]
as I am a quite new member I am not sure if I should post on this topic. Let's see. I've tried to find an approach by doing bigram and trigram analyses. I posted one of my solutions on the Austrian Mensa Journal but no one is interested in such things. So I'll ask you to let me know what you think:
[img][/img]
- Attachments
-
example.JPG [ 66.66 KiB | Viewed 240 times ]
Re: MY 340
by ALisowsky » Mon Nov 14, 2011 2:42 pm
Just thought of this, but haven't had a chance to test it yet... wanted to see if anyone had any thoughts:
While the bifid encipherment did show promise due to the appearance of naturals according to the correct period, I think I have come up with a reason to believe that it is NOT a bifid encipherment prior to homophonic sub:
Bifid's are great because they spread out frequency so evenly, but paired with homophonic sub, they also create a glaring weakness. In order for a bifid to truly stand up to a brute force homophone search, it has to have a huge number of ciphertext chars (at which point I would say this cipher could be close to unbreakable. Much higher than 63 for instance).
When I encrypted my340 with a bifid, then followed it up with a homophonic (As I explained sooner in the thread), we were averaging ~2-3 ciphertext chars assigned for each letter (25 letters total after bifid) in order to reach the goal of 63 unique ciphertext symbols.
Brute force should demolish this... while it would generate garbage (since the resulting cipher was still well-encrypted with the bifid), it would pick up huge numbers of potential homophone sets, since most letters only had 2 or 3 homophones assigned to it.
In comparison, the 340 is showing low numbers of potential homophone set candidates compared to a straight homophonic cipher(when compared with the 408 or the my340 with a homophonic sub), whereas it would stand to reason that a bifid would be the opposite.
The bonus to this is, that a bifid (or any other fractionalization) could only be applied prior to a homophonic sub, meaning I have come to the conclusion that a bifid was not involved with the Z340.
I can't believe it only took me 2 months to figure this out.
Thoughts?
Adam
While the bifid encipherment did show promise due to the appearance of naturals according to the correct period, I think I have come up with a reason to believe that it is NOT a bifid encipherment prior to homophonic sub:
Bifid's are great because they spread out frequency so evenly, but paired with homophonic sub, they also create a glaring weakness. In order for a bifid to truly stand up to a brute force homophone search, it has to have a huge number of ciphertext chars (at which point I would say this cipher could be close to unbreakable. Much higher than 63 for instance).
When I encrypted my340 with a bifid, then followed it up with a homophonic (As I explained sooner in the thread), we were averaging ~2-3 ciphertext chars assigned for each letter (25 letters total after bifid) in order to reach the goal of 63 unique ciphertext symbols.
Brute force should demolish this... while it would generate garbage (since the resulting cipher was still well-encrypted with the bifid), it would pick up huge numbers of potential homophone sets, since most letters only had 2 or 3 homophones assigned to it.
In comparison, the 340 is showing low numbers of potential homophone set candidates compared to a straight homophonic cipher(when compared with the 408 or the my340 with a homophonic sub), whereas it would stand to reason that a bifid would be the opposite.
The bonus to this is, that a bifid (or any other fractionalization) could only be applied prior to a homophonic sub, meaning I have come to the conclusion that a bifid was not involved with the Z340.
I can't believe it only took me 2 months to figure this out.
Thoughts?
Adam
Return to November 8, 1969: The 340-symbol Cipher
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests