I followed your progress in your previous post, and I have one concern for your approach. They way I understand how you are going about this is that each quadrant is encoded independently of the others, but also that it was originally written independently of the others. It seems more likely to me that the message was written line-by-line, divided into quadrants and then encoded on a quadrant basis. If that is the case, an individual quadrant won't contain only whole-words, as words will inevitably cross quadrant boundaries, resulting in non-words in the quadrant. Assuming all that is true, it seems that attacking the largest quadrant first would result in a larger dataset and therefore more opportunities for whole words. Just throwing out another idea. It seems like your code is easily modifiable to drop in the quadrants, so maybe some people might to try running it on the other quadrants.
controversy18749 karma
I followed your progress in your previous post, and I have one concern for your approach. They way I understand how you are going about this is that each quadrant is encoded independently of the others, but also that it was originally written independently of the others. It seems more likely to me that the message was written line-by-line, divided into quadrants and then encoded on a quadrant basis. If that is the case, an individual quadrant won't contain only whole-words, as words will inevitably cross quadrant boundaries, resulting in non-words in the quadrant. Assuming all that is true, it seems that attacking the largest quadrant first would result in a larger dataset and therefore more opportunities for whole words. Just throwing out another idea. It seems like your code is easily modifiable to drop in the quadrants, so maybe some people might to try running it on the other quadrants.
View HistoryShare Link