Made 10 ciphers with different plaintext and about 20% random homophone selection (cycle randomization). 2 ciphers had similar rows as the 340. In the first cipher removal of one of the affected rows does only increase perfect n-symbol cycles marginally and in the second cipher removal of the affected row caused a very long perfect 2-symbol cycle to appear.
I could try to stack different cycle measurements to validate eachother.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 14 5 15 16 17 18 19 18 20 17 21 19 22 23 24 25 10 26 27 28 6 1 29 25 30 31 32 27 8 5 2 33 34 1 35 10 36 5 11 37 15 33 38 2 31 32 39 9 10 11 9 30 29 24 17 40 41 20 42 3 4 5 23 43 10 2 44 5 18 17 15 45 1 8 10 19 32 46 25 34 47 5 9 11 48 17 14 49 39 19 50 7 51 18 5 26 18 29 10 32 52 45 53 54 24 11 4 38 17 40 41 23 55 5 30 32 31 2 46 47 29 10 34 27 28 6 33 1 32 14 29 49 47 21 19 32 56 11 23 48 22 27 10 51 57 33 13 28 26 39 8 5 17 9 19 6 58 10 30 45 38 1 53 50 28 36 29 5 23 47 40 59 6 27 43 10 49 60 32 28 8 18 13 44 5 51 41 29 10 2 33 51 55 56 42 24 9 18 36 1 29 2 58 15 25 38 46 53 27 34 33 27 19 55 7 32 8 5 26 33 28 42 28 30 24 11 18 28 17 3 40 56 25 17 1 5 49 54 19 31 32 16 61 21 51 52 11 53 50 41 50 59 40 18 9 10 17 28 36 8 5 23 47 49 7 19 6 48 62 16 51 29 10 32 21 5 53 40 4 15 48 14 57 11 39 8 28 13 20 24 2 58 17 18 28 19 22 49 44 25 32 1 9 51 24 3 10 34 27 41 59 26 11 45 4 33 28 7 30 31 23 8 25 36 9 AZdecrypt encoding randomization stats for: m3.txt ---------------------------------------------------- - Attempts to detect encoding randomization from the input given that it has sequential properties. - A higher percentage (improvement rate) may be more indicative of randomization. Rows, randomize characters, using 2-symbol cycles: ---------------------------------------------------- Row 1: 24.85% Row 2: 3.55% Row 3: 65.23% <--- Row 4: 51.21% <--- Row 5: 0.06% Row 6: 0.66% Row 7: 0.04% Row 8: 0.69% Row 9: 2.55% Row 10: 0.16% Row 11: 0.13% Row 12: 2.02% Row 13: 3.63% Row 14: 0.41% Row 15: 0.1% Row 16: 0.44% Row 17: 0.64% Row 18: 0.01% Row 19: 0% Row 20: 0% -------------------- Average: 7.81% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 14 15 16 17 14 18 19 20 21 5 22 23 24 25 26 7 14 1 27 28 29 30 20 31 32 33 34 35 2 36 37 7 26 29 11 38 14 1 8 4 39 40 22 25 41 42 13 35 20 43 44 9 10 7 15 45 41 5 46 47 27 48 1 2 41 49 4 1 19 11 30 1 5 28 25 50 51 33 52 43 53 47 40 31 15 23 28 2 13 54 21 14 1 24 20 28 29 7 34 14 36 32 27 38 30 55 20 4 48 7 56 24 8 51 16 51 11 21 26 25 50 37 14 35 29 15 16 33 2 54 40 22 42 13 57 27 58 18 4 16 10 30 36 6 35 27 48 5 36 1 25 33 21 48 2 32 17 40 50 49 26 56 54 29 20 52 4 55 7 13 38 57 14 30 8 39 20 24 9 47 7 28 25 23 14 18 2 29 15 36 59 2 12 51 20 24 28 4 60 7 29 35 27 48 31 9 29 33 23 12 10 14 28 24 40 20 34 16 25 41 51 13 37 25 42 41 40 26 7 6 4 1 49 11 55 14 13 21 15 50 1 30 16 33 22 42 25 29 20 55 7 24 34 27 35 29 14 1 27 54 1 22 20 26 5 24 7 21 10 14 1 5 46 19 23 56 29 40 31 17 61 57 2 62 34 11 58 58 32 39 30 37 16 4 28 29 40 20 34 21 15 18 1 28 27 24 13 22 47 63 51 56 32 31 2 14 55 20 29 30 34 15 57 4 30 18 AZdecrypt encoding randomization stats for: m10.txt ---------------------------------------------------- - Attempts to detect encoding randomization from the input given that it has sequential properties. - A higher percentage (improvement rate) may be more indicative of randomization. Rows, randomize characters, using 2-symbol cycles: ---------------------------------------------------- Row 1: 0.52% Row 2: 0.22% Row 3: 0.01% Row 4: 0.01% Row 5: 0.98% Row 6: 0.05% Row 7: 0.02% Row 8: 0.02% Row 9: 1.05% Row 10: 3.08% Row 11: 0.01% Row 12: 0.14% Row 13: 6.34% Row 14: 11.17% Row 15: 0.3% Row 16: 26.22% Row 17: 1.48% Row 18: 0.26% Row 19: 7.52% Row 20: 72.45% <--- -------------------- Average: 6.59%
You made messages with random symbol selection to find out if the heatmap would find rows comparable to the 340, then deleted the rows to find out if the cycle scores would increase as much as the 340 when you delete row 14?
Jarlve
I am not up to speed with the heat map set up yet. I do have a question though. Using the 408 if you swap row 24 (the last row) and row 14 how does that react.
come to think of it I probably have the same question for the 340 swap row 14 to the last row rather than delete. just to see how it looks.
You made messages with random symbol selection to find out if the heatmap would find rows comparable to the 340, then deleted the rows to find out if the cycle scores would increase as much as the 340 when you delete row 14?
20% random homophone selection can cause the test to show up rows like in the 340. Though I want to dig a little bit further. It seems that whole rows can be affected by a much smaller fragment inside (the whole in the part). Symbol cycles can inflate and deflate very rapidly with randomization. Will try a few things.
@Mr lowe, swapping these rows introduces 3 new symbols to the 340 and 4 to the 408. Row 14 in the 340 is so bad that almost anything will improve it and so it did. In the 408, glurk showed that the last line contained many fragments that were dropped down vertically. Looking a bit further here we can see below that the last row creates 2 omnidirectional trigrams and 1 omnidirectional quadgram. Not sure what to think about that.
UIk
6
q
qEHM
q
6
WI
I
U
=
VEXr9WI6qEHM)=UIk
Jarlve. sorry but i think my translation was lost, What i wanted to see with the 408 heat map was the last row filler being moved and highlighted at row 14. It should not produce any new symbols. (its the same code reorganised)
swap the last row of the 408 with row 14 of the 408 to see if the heat map showed something similar at row 14. more of a test than anything.
PS for the 408 you can swap the last row with any row but 14 seems like as good a row as any.
Again do the same with the 340. a straight swap. row14>20 row20>14 What i`m looking for is a way that the 340 ends up with a "possible" filler at row 14.
cheers.
New idea, cycle assisted solving. Going under the assumption that the 340 is a homophonic substitution cipher. Then a plaintext of any merit should have a more cyclic plaintext to ciphertext key. Following are a few examples, smokie18e has a low scoring hard to make out plaintext and is less cyclic than than the 340, yet it scores better.
408 plaintext to ciphertext key with cycles scores:
Input to output key: ---------------------------------------------------- I: 9PUk9PUk9PUk9PUk9PUk9PUk9PUk9PUk9P99U99PP9Uk (3968) L: %B%B#B%B#B#B#B%#B%%%%#B#B%%#B##%B (330) K: ////// (0) E: ZpW+6NEZpW+6NEEZpW+6NEZpW+6NENZpW+6NEZpW++WZE6Z+W6EW6E (3542) N: O^D(O^D(O^D(O^D(O^DO^DO (960) G: RRRRRRRRRRRR (0) P: ======= (0) O: X!TdXTdX!TdX!TXTdT!XXd!dXTX (360) B: VVVVVVVVV (0) C: eeeeeeeeee (0) A: G7Sl8G8Sl8GS8l8G8lSl7GS8SG7G8 (30) U: YYYYYYYYYY (0) S: F@KF@K@KF@KF@KFF@ (330) T: HI5LHI5ILHI5LHI5LHI5LHI5LI5LHL5IIHI (1680) M: qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (0) H: M)M)M)M)M)M)M)M) (420) F: JQJQJQJQJJQ (144) R: trtrtrtrtrttrr (546) W: AAAAAAAA (0) D: fzzfzfz (40) V: cccccc (0) X: j (0) Y: ________ (0) -------------------- Cycle score: 12350
smokie18e plaintext to ciphertext with cycle scores:
Input to output key: ---------------------------------------------------- A: >>`19B>1`B>`9B```1`9`B>9`19>>`B>`9B>`B> (60) S: ^D:$88::$$8:$^DD^8:8$:D::8:^DD (10) T: WWWF,WW,WWF,,*WF*,WFWW,W,W,WW*WW (48) E: ZI[ZI[ZZIZZZI[ZI[ZI[ZZIZ[ZZ[[ZI[ZZIZ[IIZZI (1026) R: 6<0<6A0<<<<<06J<A06<J6A<<< (60) C: +e+++Ce+ (6) D: OcOKKOOcKOOcOKK (36) I: g4a]g4ga]4]4]agg]g44a] (120) N: Y)2fY))Yf)2f)7f2))f)Y))7) (0) L: MMM5M#55MP5M#PM (8) O: Q.S.....Q.S..QQS....S........ (18) W: GGG(GG( (12) H: --R/R-R-R--R-//R (18) B: ;;&;&; (24) U: NT"NNNNT" (18) F: U_UU (4) M: bbLLL (6) P: VVVV (0) Y: hhh (0) G: % (0) -------------------- Cycle score: 1474
340 plaintext to ciphertext with cycle scores:
Input to output key: ---------------------------------------------------- G: HH33HH (4) S: Epp##ppp_p-##_6-p-Ep6#E-p6p_-p (0) H: RR&RRRR&RR (24) I: >O*J*OjO*>JjOJOOJ**>OOO*>O (30) C: lZllXZlllXZlZ (36) E: ^1NB<Bz^z4^zNz<B4z^<BB<4BzNBN^44B14zB^1<Bz<BBNz (0) N: VTMSVMVMVTMTMSVVMTSTMS (48) T: P2++8++2+P+82+22++++2+++2++82+++2++++P8+ (0) O: k)U)5kk5U@UU5555U5)))kk (0) P: |7|C|7|||C|C|C|7C| (60) R: LWWLtFFFLLFFtFFFtLFWLWWFWt (8) A: GDKcGKDKcGGbcKDbKccGbccKGcccDK (0) M: ddddd (0) L: (%Y((%(YY(((Y (18) D: .y.yy.y.y.. (112) V: f:ff:f (24) U: 9999 (0) F: /// (0) B: qq (0) Y: ;A;A; (24) -------------------- Cycle score: 388
Jarlve. sorry but i think my translation was lost, What i wanted to see with the 408 heat map was the last row filler being moved and highlighted at row 14. It should not produce any new symbols. (its the same code reorganised)
swap the last row of the 408 with row 14 of the 408 to see if the heat map showed something similar at row 14. more of a test than anything.
PS for the 408 you can swap the last row with any row but 14 seems like as good a row as any.Again do the same with the 340. a straight swap. row14>20 row20>14 What i`m looking for is a way that the 340 ends up with a "possible" filler at row 14.
cheers.
That was a good idea Mr lowe: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5r0r … GhTbkNpdDQ
In the 408 the map now hilights row 14 but in the 340 this does not happen as much. I think this could mean that row 14 in the 340 is not filler such as the last row of the 408.
Jarlve. sorry but i think my translation was lost, What i wanted to see with the 408 heat map was the last row filler being moved and highlighted at row 14. It should not produce any new symbols. (its the same code reorganised)
swap the last row of the 408 with row 14 of the 408 to see if the heat map showed something similar at row 14. more of a test than anything.
PS for the 408 you can swap the last row with any row but 14 seems like as good a row as any.Again do the same with the 340. a straight swap. row14>20 row20>14 What i`m looking for is a way that the 340 ends up with a "possible" filler at row 14.
cheers.That was a good idea Mr lowe: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5r0r … GhTbkNpdDQ
In the 408 the map now hilights row 14 but in the 340 this does not happen as much. I think this could mean that row 14 in the 340 is not filler such as the last row of the 408.
Yes Jarlve that seems to be the case.
I think that the cycle test results, although circumstantial and inconclusive regarding the pivots, do add to what we know about the 340 and work with other test results. I see three possible explanations for the pivots, not necessarily in this order:
1. The pivots are a naturally occurring result of the cipher, except that we can’t figure out how to make a cipher with improbable period 29 / 39 bigram repeats in count, improbable period 15 / 19 repeats in count and symbol count, and pivots. And two pivots are highly improbable in any cipher that we can think of.
2. Zodiac was unaware of the period 15 / 19 and 29 / 39 repeats he was creating, which seems likely. None of the cryptography books describing transposition also discuss advanced period detection. But then he got extremely lucky when intentionally writing the pivots to either play some kind of game or give us a hint as to what he did, and he wrote the pivots at the same exact period as the period 29 / 39 spike. There would still be a period 29 spike without the pivots.
3. Zodiac, although the cryptography books didn’t discuss advanced transposition period detection, somehow had an advanced knowledge of them and realized that he was creating period 29 / 39 bigram repeats. And he wrote the pivots as a clue to what he did.
Which of the above scenarios seem more likely?
Of course, recent cycle testing shows dark rows where the pivots are. Of course it does.
Jarlve, thanks for posting your work in this thread!
Smokie my thoughts are not with a deliberate pivot implementation by z. Because i dont think he would give a clue or direction and i dont think his skill set was much more than basic training and or books. my untrained opinion only. oh and if it is a clue or direction its not a very good one.. it has not helped.
Doranchac did some work recently on statistical analysis on the probability of a pivot then two pivots and two pivots in the same direction. odds were very high against it happening from memory. I think the pivots are relevant but its got me stumped how and why.
Doranchacs visual period calculator where @ 39 the red and blue pivots are completely broken up into individual locations but all individual pivot n are brought together adjacent to each other, a red and blue scattered throughout the cipher, "technically bringing the two pivots together".
I feel that it is a route transposition or double route transposition problem. ie odds evens top half bottom half with a scytale or rail fence.
my brain hurts.
I think that the cycle test results, although circumstantial and inconclusive regarding the pivots, do add to what we know about the 340 and work with other test results. I see three possible explanations for the pivots, not necessarily in this order:
1. The pivots are a naturally occurring result of the cipher, except that we can’t figure out how to make a cipher with improbable period 29 / 39 bigram repeats in count, improbable period 15 / 19 repeats in count and symbol count, and pivots. And two pivots are highly improbable in any cipher that we can think of.
2. Zodiac was unaware of the period 15 / 19 and 29 / 39 repeats he was creating, which seems likely. None of the cryptography books describing transposition also discuss advanced period detection. But then he got extremely lucky when intentionally writing the pivots to either play some kind of game or give us a hint as to what he did, and he wrote the pivots at the same exact period as the period 29 / 39 spike. There would still be a period 29 spike without the pivots.
3. Zodiac, although the cryptography books didn’t discuss advanced transposition period detection, somehow had an advanced knowledge of them and realized that he was creating period 29 / 39 bigram repeats. And he wrote the pivots as a clue to what he did.
Which of the above scenarios seem more likely?
Of course, recent cycle testing shows dark rows where the pivots are. Of course it does.
Jarlve, thanks for posting your work in this thread!
As you say, either the pivots are intentional or they are a naturally occurring result of the cipher. Between the two, many theories can be formed as to why and how and until we have solved the cipher it seems to be a thing of personal preference.
There are cases where extraordinary coincidence delayed research for years. Such as the painting in The Old Lady Killer case: "Then an odd coincidence distracted the investigation: at least three of Barraza’s victims owned a print of an eighteenth-century painting by the French artist Jean-Baptiste Greuze, Boy in Red Waistcoat.". From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juana_Barraza
I don’t want to diminish the pivots that way but sometimes when you can’t get around something, it may be better to leave it aside for a while. I find our intelligence analogous to a hill-climber, we can get stuck in local maxima.
I am working on something very promising that we talked about several years ago, a true cycle hill-climber which tries to reduce the ciphertext to plaintext using only cycle information.
That way, it generated the following plaintext from the 408, note that it doesn’t care about which letters it uses:
RQRENERGQRUFJNDJG NMNTOLINRHREEIBLT VYLURVRSBTDCYLUHV OEERGGRUFMRQKFCBP RUHVNYICCNIHMNTPL ENBOUREVVNBDPHKOE FCDVLPCUPBOGTYOGG HIERGGEDBPHVRUFFR ANEBNVVNBIPHHVCRG GRUFNXJNCCETPRHRI NANUMNVHNDHVCUFNH VRUFWTLCCITEEDYYM RHVPFRDQHVCMPEHJO CVIYRHRPHVCCMVNER KRNRMRGGMNCNMTDUR UJOCCKRTNSUKOQQVV CRVOAPERQQNKMRGGM NTDBNBWIGPANERMRG QUTHFRANWILBWUOBN MNTOLEPWTLMRQGHDW HIIGDRKDMUICSHIJB WTIGGNTHRUFDYIQOA NEYTDBWPYVNCGRYNN MPDCRNVNBPHVVJRVR
Then fed into the substitution solver produced this, note a reasonable accurate decryption:
Score: 18015.15 Ioc: 0.06435 ILISESILLINGPEOPL EWECAUOEITISSOMUC HFUNIHIAMCORFUNTH ASSILLINGWILDGRMA INTHEFORREOTWECAU SEMANISHHEMOATDAS GROHUARNAMALCFALL TOSILLSOMATHINGGI VESMEHHEMOATTHRIL LINGEXPERRSCAITIO EVENWEHTEOTHRNGET HINGSCURROCSSOFFW ITHAGIOLTHRWASTPA RHOFITIATHRRWHESI DIEIWILLWEREWCONI NPARRDICEANDALLHH RIHAVASILLEDWILLW ECOMEMSOLAVESIWIL LNCTGIVESOUMSNAME WECAUSASCUWILLTOS TOOLOIDOWNORATOPM SCOLLECTINGOFOLAV ESFCOMSAFHERLIFEE WAORIEHEMATHHPIHI
Plaintext to ciphertext key and cycles:
Input to output key: -------------------------------------------------------- R: 9PUk9PUk9PUk9PUk9PUk9PUk9PUk9PUk9P99U99PP9Uk (3968) Q: %%%%%%%%%%% (11) E: //@K(/@K(/@K(/@K(/@K@ (960) N: ZpW+6ZpW+6ZpW+6ZpW+6ZpW+6ZpW++WZ6Z+W6W6 (3000) G: BB#BB#B#B#B#B#B#B#B##B (612) U: O^DO^DO^DO^DO^DO^DO (816) F: RRRRRRRRRRRR (12) J: ======= (7) D: XtXtXtXttXtXXXtX (264) M: VAVVAVAAVVAVAVAAV (264) T: eeTeTeTeTeeTeTeeT (312) O: GSGSGSGSGSSGG (180) L: YYYYYYYYYY (10) I: F!dFd!Fd!Fd!Fd!dF (468) H: H5LH5LH5LH5LH5LH5L5LHL5H (1026) B: qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (16) V: MI)MI)IMI)MI)IM)IM)IM)IIM)I (1140) Y: JQJQJQJQJJQ (144) S: 777 (3) C: NlrNlrNlrNrlNrlNrr (1088) K: fzzfzfz (40) P: E88E8E8E8E8E8E8EE (364) A: cccccc (6) X: j (1) W: ________ (8) -------------------- Cycle score: 14720
Actual plaintext to ciphertext key and cycles:
Input to output key: -------------------------------------------------------- I: 9PUk9PUk9PUk9PUk9PUk9PUk9PUk9PUk9P99U99PP9Uk (3968) L: %B%B#B%B#B#B#B%#B%%%%#B#B%%#B##%B (330) K: ////// (6) E: ZpW+6NEZpW+6NEEZpW+6NEZpW+6NENZpW+6NEZpW++WZE6Z+W6EW6E (3542) N: O^D(O^D(O^D(O^D(O^DO^DO (960) G: RRRRRRRRRRRR (12) P: ======= (7) O: X!TdXTdX!TdX!TXTdT!XXd!dXTX (360) B: VVVVVVVVV (9) C: eeeeeeeeee (10) A: G7Sl8G8Sl8GS8l8G8lSl7GS8SG7G8 (30) U: YYYYYYYYYY (10) S: F@KF@K@KF@KF@KFF@ (330) T: HI5LHI5ILHI5LHI5LHI5LHI5LI5LHL5IIHI (1680) M: qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (16) H: M)M)M)M)M)M)M)M) (420) F: JQJQJQJQJJQ (144) R: trtrtrtrtrttrr (546) W: AAAAAAAA (8) D: fzzfzfz (40) V: cccccc (6) X: j (1) Y: ________ (8) -------------------- Cycle score: 12443
Same method applied to the jrob cipher, it starts with "ILIKEEATINGICECREAMBECAUSEITIS…", as you can see it solved reasonably well:
Score: 17273.58 Ioc: 0.08276 ILICEEATIANINEC REAMBECNOSEITIS SOHELANNDIDISMO HEHELINIORSTHSA EATISMSRDRBETON THENROCEANOONAI SLEBECAOSEANENR EAMIDTHEMSSTCEL ICIONSNELATOONA LLTOANDSOMETHIS MSTEETNIRESMETR EMODTOLESSINDEC OEREANEATISPREA MOREOLEASISNTHA NSLRHOIAMHOTSAT ENDPSDRACETHEBE STOARDSAITISTHA TTHEAIORAANTESL LTRINECREAMIHAR PEATESTILLBEREB ORMASLEMOAANEIT ILLSOTNIREPORTR ENAMEONMPMHONER BENNOSPPONTALLS LSTNOTAORDDOOMP ESTIANONICENREA MHAAACCRTESTCIA
And on daikon3, a cipher with numerals initially solved by doranchak by collapsing cycles:
Score: 20187.38 Ioc: 0.08840 LADIACVICTAOSVALLE DATHIRTOEIGHTDSEVE NOTHIRTOTHREESNART HANEHUNDREDTHENTOT HADELEVENOTHENTOSE VENSHESTMENICIATHI RTOEIGHTDFIVEOINFA RTOANESNARTHANEHUN DREDTHENTOTHADEIGH TOTHIRTOEIGHTSHEST LAKEMERROESSATHIRT OEIGHTDTHIRTOTHREE OFARTOEIGHTSNARTHA NEHUNDREDTHENTOTHA DTHIRTEENOFIFTOFAU RSHESTSANFRANCISCA THIRTOSEVENDFARTOS EVENONINETEENSNART HANEHUNDREDTHENTOT HADTHENTOSEVENOTHE NTOFIVESHESTRADIAC
For the 340 cycles are collapsed as such. Note that its ioc is only 0.045 and that there is no bigram peak at period 19. I think that it means that either cycles were far from correctly collapsed or that period 19 is random:
VWQRXQMTSPFWNVAGP IXUOANDSCLRABMQTL OKSFQUJRALALNNGVJ IXXRMQPMTSXDUUQQG CMQUGMHPFEDSUHKPR XPQMDQDBMPWPDRGCA NEUQHSCGJFCATAGNF AAGJTHNDUCIRGUHNM PBQUYURQGDOFKHYKQ BGQJTUMJUDXRBDOKB JUQREMWFCROXYVQQD GBFQQJFMEVKQAUHOD GYMIKNUIFEDOFACPQ QADIMTEGKYAFTKMUU KOCWMSKMWWRTJREBU FFASGOQADXMATQHAG QFVUNWYWBUDQLOFLN UULLWGLFSDIVVRALX FDPPLBRMOCRDOMBWF RQCVIXPIGRDPHFQCU
With the following plaintext to ciphertext key and cycles:
Input to output key: -------------------------------------------------------- V: HTHTTTHTH (60) W: E1CE1CE1CCC (126) Q: RlKMlRKMRlKMRKlRMKlRMRlKMRlMK (1368) R: >YZ7/>YZ7/Y>Z/7Y>Z (660) X: ppppppppppp (110) M: ^*^*9t^*9^t*9^t*9^t* (728) T: VfVVfVfVVf (84) S: P%:3P%:3P (120) P: kd8dk8dkd8kdk8 (216) F: |c|c|c|c||cc|cc|c|c| (480) N: L#L##L#L#LL (112) A: G(.G((G.(G.(G..(.G( (396) G: 2z2z22z2z2z2z2z2zz (420) I: NSNSNNSNS (84) U: ++++++++++++++++++++++++ (552) O: BBBBBBBBBBBB (132) D: OOFFOFOFOFOFFFOFOFOO (364) C: D_D;X_D;X_D; (224) L: W)W)W))WW)W (112) B: <-<-<-<-<<- (144) K: y4y4y4y44y4 (144) J: UJUJUJUJU (112) H: j&qj@A&qA (30) E: 5555555 (42) Y: b6b6b6 (40) -------------------- Cycle score: 6860
Collapse homophones produces a near perfect result for smokie1 (the version without wildcards):
UDFUMWTPQWPMMKRNG HFPKRMPJWMGJTKRXE SCRJEWWNJTWEPNWPI JKREDRRGHDJKSCRJY RCVVTGYBDEWNWVTKM WKYKEEJTWYYGUDFUM WTPQWPMMPFCDRSSCR JYRCVKEKNICNKRXDU CFSCVRPNKTPUUGCFK RNKEWFGVTPJWAWFKJ KEJTPJXKFMUDJPEUW MMCRNWTWMUNWTWMUN WCTRCCTGWPTUDFUMW TPQWPMMKRNGWGWYSC RJYRCVKEKJESPGCFR KXTJGCDAWXCJNWHMC VKRXHMCVKRXNGNKRS KEKJJCNCFFCVCFBDE JJTWWRSCEJKNWTWMU NWGWPTUDFUMWTPQWO
Into the substitution solver:
Score: 22145.11 Ioc: 0.06068 PURPLEHAVEALLINMY BRAINLATELYTHINGS DONTSEEMTHESAMEAC TINSUNNYBUTIDONTS NOWWHYSOUSEMEWHIL EISISSTHESSYPURPL EHAVEALLAROUNDDON TSNOWISIMCOMINGUP ORDOWNAMIHAPPYORI NMISERYWHATEVERIT ISTHATGIRLPUTASPE LLONMEHELPMEHELPM EOHNOOHYEAHPURPLE HAVEALLINMYEYESDO NTSNOWISITSDAYORN IGHTYOUVEGOTMEBLO WINGBLOWINGMYMIND ISITTOMORROWOROUS TTHEENDOSTIMEHELP MEYEAHPURPLEHAVEB
However, as encoding randomness increases, the function becomes increasingly unreliable to the point where it fails. This point needs to be pushed back as far as possible.
