|
Can you break the code? (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Joss Weatherby |
There are more than 26 unique quintuplets, and more than what would be considered normal for a distribution of capital letters (unless he is typing like tHiS) and punctuation.
I think the whole thing might be a cumulative process. I know its not good to use symbology as a guide, but something like using the symbols for their mathematical meaning and period being the "stop". |
|
|
| Redd |
to update; I ran out of different colors to mark different quintuplets (Qs from now on). Wordpad sucks. Then I started putting (x) behind them. Then I couldn't be arsed to do it any more because I figured even with every unique Q identified it could be useless because of the variable in the formula. A specific Q could represent different symbols depending on where in the code it was, or after what Q it succeeded. This is assumed to be true from the lack of succeeding identical Qs, because the probability of a sentence with ~200 letters with no double consonants or vowels is slim to none.
If the Q represents different symbols depending on where in the code it is, the formula for symbol decimal value(D) to Q-value could look like something like D = (Q plus/times/minus n) where Q is a number and n is cycling through 0-9. I know there is an easier way to write this maybe using permutations. The fact is there are so many different ways this formula could look. We would have to figure out n, what cycle it uses, what number it varies with and how (addition, subtraction, dividing etc.).
If this is the case it's just too much work and Tasty Onions is a dick to have made it this way :p He did write it's not too complicated, I just hope he knows what complicated means, because this always seem simple when you have the solution in front of you.
The . and +--., plus the fact that there are no succeeding .'s in any of the Qs is probably the most noteworthy I've gathered from the code. You don't even see Qs ending in . when the next is starting with one.
The problem is, . and +--. could mean '.', '!' and '?'.
sigh; I know I'm going around in circles. |
|
|
| Tasty Onions |
| I suppose I can give some hints if you guys want. :p |
|
|
| Tasty Onions |
| And "complicated" is a relative term. When I wrote "not complicated," I meant when compared to "real deal" encryption like Blowfish, AES, etc. |
|
|
| Redd |
| quote: | Originally posted by Tasty Onions
I suppose I can give some hints if you guys want. :p |
I'd let Eddie come back from whatever he's doing and make a reply with what he has come up with and what he makes of what I've written. I don't think I'll bother to try to crack this myself. |
|
|
| Tasty Onions |
| quote: | Originally posted by Taipan
Give us a hint!! |
Waiting for Eddie to give the okay on that, since he's one of the ones who worked on it the most. |
|
|
| Tasty Onions |
Actually, I will say one thing right now to correct a certain mistaken assumption, because it has been kind of painful to watch you guys work based on it:
| quote: | Originally posted by Redd
for all we know the spaces between the quints are just put there to make the code look more organized. herp |
^ This is correct. The spaces are merely cosmetic. So the grouping of characters into sets of five has no special meaning.
More substantive hints if Eddie gives the okay. |
|
|
| Meat187 |
I'm surprised people can be arsed to work on this. I can't, but from mere inspection a few thoughts that might help others:
- In the first segment I count 1006 symbols "+", "-", "." and "*". That number can't be divided by 3, 4 or 5 which means it's not a simple code replacing letters with a fixed length symbol representation.
- For variable-length codes you need to knwo where a unit begins. For this one can use a prefix-free code or a separator.
- Since the only combination that never occurs is ".." it's likely that the "." is such a separator.
- A typical variable length code is the Huffman Coding.
- If the meaning of specific code chunks doesn't change then it can usually be cracked using the Letter frequency. If the meaning of a chunk varies then it's a lot more difficult.
Unless I'm way off that should help. |
|
|
| Taipan |
| quote: | Originally posted by Tasty Onions
^ This is correct. The spaces are merely cosmetic. So the grouping of characters into sets of five has no special meaning.
More substantive hints if Eddie gives the okay. |
That's huge. So I'm going to assume that the "." is what separates one letter from the next. And that the combinations of "+" "*" and "-" are what determines the letters. |
|
|
| Tasty Onions |
| Assume whatever you like! Then get to work on cracking. :disbelief |
|
|
| Meat187 |
| Why don't you offer a price? Like Reese's. Or weed. Or weed filled Reese's! For weed filled Reese's I'd probably start working on it... |
|
|
|
|
