25-06-2025, 03:58 PM
A little thought in passing:
While reading the various posts, I get the impression that some people sometimes oppose the statements “this is the product of a generative algorithm” and “this is a cypher”.
I think this is a mistake: if you have a functional method for generating meaningless pseudo-language text, you can easily turn it into a fairly effective cyphering method.
For example, considering a Torsten-like method, at some point you take a base word and you have to choose a modification from a list (delete, add, modify a glyph, etc.). This choice is then a good place to encode meaning:
* If I add a glyph, it encodes such a letter / syllable / word / …
* If I delete a glyph, it encodes this,
* Etc.
(This is just an illustration, very incomplete, of the idea.)
In short, showing elements that support the idea that “this is the product of a generative algorithm” is always interesting, but it tells us nothing about the meaningless vs. cipher question.
While reading the various posts, I get the impression that some people sometimes oppose the statements “this is the product of a generative algorithm” and “this is a cypher”.
I think this is a mistake: if you have a functional method for generating meaningless pseudo-language text, you can easily turn it into a fairly effective cyphering method.
For example, considering a Torsten-like method, at some point you take a base word and you have to choose a modification from a list (delete, add, modify a glyph, etc.). This choice is then a good place to encode meaning:
* If I add a glyph, it encodes such a letter / syllable / word / …
* If I delete a glyph, it encodes this,
* Etc.
(This is just an illustration, very incomplete, of the idea.)
In short, showing elements that support the idea that “this is the product of a generative algorithm” is always interesting, but it tells us nothing about the meaningless vs. cipher question.