Making The Case That Voynich Is A Hoax

DeadVulcan writes "The Voynich Manuscript, a mysterious book of uncertain age, is widely believed to be written either in an unknown language or a long-lost encryption scheme. Nature reports that computer scientist Gordon Rugg has demonstrated that it's possible to generate a text like the Voynich manuscript -- containing language-like regularities, despite being potentially meaningless -- using cryptographic techniques of the time. This lends some support to those who claim that the book is a hoax."

Comments

The Salamander Papers

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Somebody is laughing a lot.. Remember way back the Salamander Papers?

Library of Babel

[Mrs. Grundy]

This reminds me of a passage from Jorge Luis Borges' Library of Babel. In fact a lot reminds me of that story these days.

Five hundred years ago, the chief of an upper hexagon (2) came upon a book as confusing as the others, but which had nearly two pages of homogeneous lines. He showed his find to a wandering decoder who told him the lines were written in Portuguese; others said they were Yiddish. Within a century, the language was established: a Samoyedic Lithuanian dialect of Guarani, with classical Arabian inflections. The content was also deciphered: some notions of combinative analysis, illustrated with examples of variations with unlimited repetition.

Re:Ridiculous

[Seth Morabito]

The point of a hoax, in my opinion, would most likely have been financial gain.

There is no clear evidence pointing to an exact date that the manuscript was written, and the only firm circumstantial evidence we have to go on is Marcus Marci's letter to Anasthasius Kirchir, which mentions that the manuscript was sold to King Rudolph for 600 ducats. That is a heck of a lot of money. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that someone manufactured the manuscript to extract 600 ducats from the emperor.

This assumes a lot. It assumes that the letter is genuine, and it assumes that the facts mentioned in the letter are true, and it assumes that Rudolph was the first buyer, so it is by no means a sure thing. But a lot of us who lean (gingerly) toward the hoax theory stand by Occam's Razor, which points to a hoax being at least a feasable, and probably even likely solution. Rugg's analysis is just more circumstantial evidence, not proof, but every little bit weights the scale more.

Can you say "Kolmogorov complexity"?

[dido]

One definition of randomness, and one that seems quite reasonable is that a string is "random" if it cannot be compressed to smaller than it is, i.e. listing its characters itself is the most compact possible description. Formally, a string is random if there exists no algorithm generating the string whose description on some universal Turing machine is smaller than the string itself (this is the definition used in the field of Kolmogorov complexity). A string of a billion digits making up Pi, for example, is not random by this definition, as one can easily write a short program, whose length would certainly be less than one billion characters, whose output is the digits of Pi. Think of it this way: the most general form of pattern matching device that we know of is a Turing machine, and if the best device you can construct to match that pattern is as complex or more complex than the pattern itself, then well, you have total randomness. Unfortunately, rigorously proving that a particular string is random by this very strong definition is extremely difficult, as you run into undecidability everywhere you turn.

This is the sort of stuff that real theoretical computer science is made of. For a very good overview of the theory of Kolmogorov Complexity and algorithmic information theory, Gregory Chaitin's home page is a good starting point

To go back to the Voynich manuscript, if there is some sort of regularity that can be discerned from it, then perhaps a context-free or context-sensitive (or something in between) language may be found to characterize it. Once you have such a syntactic characterization, perhaps it might be possible to divine the semantics from context. The shape of the grammar that results may well prove whether the Manuscript is in fact a real language, a fabrication, an elaborate cipher, or just total gibberish.