And the Z340 (already transposed) – not always as fast is in this example –

==================================================
i hope you are having lots off an in trying to catch me that wasnt mk on the tvshow which bring oupa point about me i am not afraid of the gaschamber be caas e it will send me to par all ce all the soo her because know have enough slaves tow or v for me where everyone else has nothing when they reach para lick so they are afraid of lea thiam not afraid because iv now that my new life is life will be an easy one in paradice death
==================================================
index_of_coincidence=1.684157556828041 (reference=1.73)
dictionary_quality=-315.7347044503333
quality=ngram qual=-1767.3363999512062 anti entropy qual=1451.8217285985636 quality=-2565857.3871923224
time taken=83.40415692329407 sec.
--------------------------
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
*_pA4FL+< b62.M8 1&#/5) 3 
Kf SB   H  7 9Rj E-%@ W C 
O   N   P  d >V  TJ(q     
l   c   k  t D^  XU:      
z   |   y    Y   Z ;      
                   G      
------

——————–

Interesting stuff, @Palpatine! I can’t claim to have built my own solver (yet) but I’ve explored all the ciphers a bit and tried applying symbol mirroring, periodic transposition and multiple reading directions to z340. No breakthroughs yet but I’ve found some interesting permutations that require further examination. Anyway, since you speak code, I thought you might be interested in this snippet which handles symbol mirroring (also mentioned in this post). Who knows what your solver would come up with if you fed it a fully or partially mirrored ciphertext?

Hi..appreciate your evaluation, some comments below:

1. (..) the sum of the occurrences of an n-gram in a solution candidate, multiplied by the frequency the n-gram would appear in a natural text.

Thus, your evaluation was based on the (5x transposed/anagrammed) solution candidate, correct? Thus, the analysis showed mostly that the result is somewhat natural text, correct? But how do you conclude, according to the analysis which is actually based on the solution candidate itself, that it’d be the cleartext? If any other natural text would come up with similar results, e.g. after any other completely different type of ‘transposition’?

2. See above.

Your heuristic approach followed the given transposition (or ‘shuffling’ if somebody would doubt the method). How can you conclude that it is ‘the one and only solution beyond reasonable doubts‘? If there were e.g. millions of other different possibilities to change the cipher by transposing, slicing etc? Eg. until this same program would come up with any other (accidential) natural text?

3. Yes, the first thing I did when reading about the solution was to put the transposition described in Dave’s video into the cipher, and run a solution with cDecryptor. Except a few single letters, the solution is the same (see above in this thread).

Which is fantastic. How can you conclude that the natural text had actually followed the idea of transposition – and not vice versa? E.g. by modifying the method of transposition/rearrangement until the program provides some natural text, what text ever?

4. I define an n-gram as a sequence of letters after stripping spaces. See the example of "the street" above.

Understood (as you were not referring to only the repeating ones but all ngrams). How do you consider ‘only ~1.3 sigma‘ to be a high or low value for such natural text / result?

Thank you for following my thoughts. I learn and have seen that without the pre-defined transposition method, the solution would not be replicable? Also, that the analysis might be beyond any ‘reasonable doubt’ but for exactly this transposition method (only). Even that after such transposition it did not match the natural text (‘a few single letters’). But by preceeding the natural text ahead of the transposition method, the result would be replicable, of course. Thus, let’s get it to the point:

1) Do you think it is possible / likely that the transposition method was made to find any of such ‘natural’ text (with actually the same tool)? Instead of using the transposition method previous to finding the result?

So to say the transposition method following the result instead of vice versa? (this would confirm my thoughts regarding a potentially ‘self-created’ text/method pattern..one may agree that the transposition method is not a simple one being pulled off the cuff like a the Ace of Spades..).

2) Do you think there could exist other transposition methods, comparable to the recent one, which could provide natural texts in a similar way, even replicable ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ ones?

3) What do you think about the frequency of word relationships regarding the text content. Based on Z408 there were about ten to be expected but I have found one or two. How many would you say are given in the text? Or in any other natural text of such length, usually?

Personally I see it like this: The evaluation was made based on the ‘given’ result/text. Of course that method is replicable. What I still do not see is that such procedure should not be possible with another method, too. There could exist millions of such replicable pattern/text connections. And even one with the unmodified cipher text (..). But I have to agree, on first attempt, was not able to find a result with such other method, either. Well.

QT

Mr Quicktrader
If there are millions of possibilities, and as you have knowledge in cryptography, and, in fact, you are one of the smartest people I know in this community, along with Jarvle, Dave, Sam, Mr Lowe, Pi & others, I have always admired your knowledge about, could you provide just one text?
It is not an ok challenge, just to try to follow your thoughts and perhaps start to rethink the possibility that the 340 solution is not the one presented.
Otherwise, I ask, if there are many possibilities for, say, clean texts, how would any derived solution be approved?

I repeat, it is neither a challenge nor a provocation, it is just to try to understand, in fact, your thoughts on.