Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Voynich manuscript: the solution?

the-tls.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 97 posts

Re: Voynich manuscript: the solution?

#21

Post by unkown-unknowns »

hcs wrote: post #9
CommieBobDole wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I read it, the writing is un-decodable because it's not really "writing" in the conventional sense, it's recipes encoded using single-letter abbreviations, many of which require an index to decipher. No index is present, and the author surmises that it was never completed, or lost.

I'm reminded of the work that was done to reverse engineer the Intel ME 11 [1], it was compressed with an unknown Huffman code which the team was nevertheless able to recover somehow. And that was with variable-length words! [1] http://blog.ptsecurity.com/2017/08/disabling-intel-me.html

From your link:

> In particular, MINIX was chosen as the basis for the operating system (previously, ThreadX RTOS had been used). Now ME firmware includes a full-fledged operating system [...]

Woah, did I read that correctly? That there is a version of MINIX running inside of the Intel processors of presumably almost every modern computer with an Intel CPU that has Intel ME in it? If so then that's insanely cool! I mean I still dislike Intel ME itself and wish I could disable it easily and without risking damage/destruction but the idea of there being a version of MINIX running on my computer right now is quite cool.

Re: Voynich manuscript: the solution?

#22

Post by mordae »

As Czech myself, I prefer to believe the theory of several clever guys tricking someone important to buy a nonsense book of secrets, splitting the spoils, having a good laugh. Resonates well... Heidrich called us the Laughing beasts for a reason.

Re: Voynich manuscript: the solution?

#23

Post by dwringer »

I see comments suggesting that it wouldn't be worth the effort to translate this based on the author's hypotheses, but there has been a substantial community around trying to do just that for a long time. FWIW The NSA appears to have published a book around 1978, The Voynich Manuscript: An Elegant Enigma [1], and a couple of the things from this article jump out at me after having read that book that raise red flags about the article's interpretation. The idea that there were multiple artists is far from being universally accepted, and experts who have studied this in the past have not been able to conclusively state that there were more than one or two authors or artists, although the possibility does remain open. Secondly, the suggestion that each glyph represents a full word in latin has also been studied - see the link for more information, but the frequency distributions and vocabulary size do not seem to make sense if that is the case (someone please correct me if I'm wrong).

In all I am surprised more progress has not been made since the advent of the internet and its crowd-sourcing potential. There is definitely no shortage of interpretations all over the internet, and in headlines from time to time. The last one I recall from a couple of months ago suggested that there was a specific Jewish birthing practice being illustrated on one of the pages that suggested a certain origin of the text. [2]

[1]https://www.nsa.gov/about/cryptologic-heritage/historical-fi...

[2]https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jul/05/author-of-myst...

Re: Voynich manuscript: the solution?

#25

Post by [deleted] »

nkurz wrote: post #20

Other than declaring that the solution is obvious to a self-declared expert such as himself, the author (Nicholas Gibbs) doesn't appear to give any proof of his theory. So far I can can find online, this piece is the only thing he has ever published about the Voynich manuscript: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22nicholas+gibbs%22+voynich Who is Nicholas Gibbs? Does anyone besides Nicholas Gibbs trust his opinion on these…

[deleted]

Re: Voynich manuscript: the solution?

#26

Post by lisper »

unkown-unknowns wrote: post #21
hcs wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm reminded of the work that was done to reverse engineer the Intel ME 11 [1], it was compressed with an unknown Huffman code which the team was nevertheless able to recover somehow. And that was with variable-length words! [1] http://blog.ptsecurity.com/2017/08/disabling-intel-me.html

From your link: > In particular, MINIX was chosen as the basis for the operating system (previously, ThreadX RTOS had been used). Now ME firmware includes a full-fledged operating system [...] Woah, did I read that correctly? That there is a version of MINIX running inside of the Intel processors of presumably almost every modern computer with an Intel CPU that has Intel ME in it? If so then that's insanely cool! I m…

> Woah, did I read that correctly?

Yep.

> If so then that's insanely cool!

I find it rather disturbing myself.

Re: Voynich manuscript: the solution?

#27

Post by exikyut »

unkown-unknowns wrote: post #21
hcs wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm reminded of the work that was done to reverse engineer the Intel ME 11 [1], it was compressed with an unknown Huffman code which the team was nevertheless able to recover somehow. And that was with variable-length words! [1] http://blog.ptsecurity.com/2017/08/disabling-intel-me.html

From your link: > In particular, MINIX was chosen as the basis for the operating system (previously, ThreadX RTOS had been used). Now ME firmware includes a full-fledged operating system [...] Woah, did I read that correctly? That there is a version of MINIX running inside of the Intel processors of presumably almost every modern computer with an Intel CPU that has Intel ME in it? If so then that's insanely cool! I m…

Yup. I'm amazed too.

On the one hand I wish the signing keys are found/"figured out" one day; that means I can look at the OS myself, which would be cool.

But on the other hand, that gives rise to "3 CPUs for your rootkits!" (there are 3 486 cores) intrusions that would be unsettlingly hideable.

I'm torn about which way to go. Personally I actually wish the signing keys (or a circumvention) was in wide circulation - it means I have to be hyper-aware about my system state and what's running on it, but the chances are, if I can modify the code running on the 486 cores, I can run my own code on them that interacts with the rest of my system in detectable ways I can define myself (eg, writing a tiny string to a known part of memory immediately causes it to be changed (eg, hashed) to something else according to an algorithm) so I know the 486 cores are busy running my code (and hopefully only my code). Shard, fragment, encrypt, obfuscate, etc that logic a few degrees, and you should have a good canary.

And then I get to say _I'm_ using (in the sense that I own) all 11 cores, 19 cores, 27 cores, etc in my Intel CPU.

FWIW, it does seem that the keys are floating around out there: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14189982 (i336_ was my previous account before I accidentally locked it)

Re: Voynich manuscript: the solution?

#28

Post by quinndupont »

nkurz wrote: post #20

Other than declaring that the solution is obvious to a self-declared expert such as himself, the author (Nicholas Gibbs) doesn't appear to give any proof of his theory. So far I can can find online, this piece is the only thing he has ever published about the Voynich manuscript: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22nicholas+gibbs%22+voynich Who is Nicholas Gibbs? Does anyone besides Nicholas Gibbs trust his opinion on these…

Agreed. It's a super strange article (sure, written like an academic, but even most don't bury the lede that badly!)

From the article it isn't clear if all or just a portion of the text is decipherable using the implied logic (ligatures of abbreviations of medicinal items).

Re: Voynich manuscript: the solution?

#29

Post by CommieBobDole »

nkurz wrote: post #20

Other than declaring that the solution is obvious to a self-declared expert such as himself, the author (Nicholas Gibbs) doesn't appear to give any proof of his theory. So far I can can find online, this piece is the only thing he has ever published about the Voynich manuscript: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22nicholas+gibbs%22+voynich Who is Nicholas Gibbs? Does anyone besides Nicholas Gibbs trust his opinion on these…

You know, it does seem odd that there's no background on the author and his qualifications attached to the article, and I can't seem to find any sign of him elsewhere.

Re: Voynich manuscript: the solution?

#30

Post by quinndupont »

saalweachter wrote: post #10
tbrake wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last two paragraphs direct how to decode but no fully decoded text is available. An exercise left to the reader I suppose.

The image at the top is a decoding of a couple of lines of text. The decoding yields extremely boring Latin, so I'm not terribly surprised if the investigator decided not to decode the entire document.

That's the curious thing: to an academic there's no such thing as "extremely boring Latin", especially when it comes to the Voynich. Why we're only given a tantalizing line is odd. Perhaps there is no single "universal" solution? Perhaps this is just a guess that happens to roughly work for a single line, but nothing else?
Post reply on HN