--- overview ---
   when cryptography is removed from a computer-only context, the
   boundaries in which it could be modeled to function within would expand
   into a wider realm of considerations that otherwise may never be
   questioned, and thus exist limited in that computational domain,
   confined in a given threshold of interpretation. thus, to exit the
   ideological constraint of 'knowing' a particular approach, and then
   eventually to reenter the computer context with perhaps a wider range
   of consideration for what might be possible...
   i think one of the most evident assumptions about computer cryptography
   as it exists is the role of mathematics (if not algebraic,) in defining
   the model if not paradigm for computer encryption. this could be a
   false view due to a naive outsider observer of these technological
   events, though it allows consideration of the involved issues
   nonetheless, however accurate.
   the case has been made that [signs] are used in language and
   mathematics, and that this is the basis for code that is used to
   program software, and it is tied into equations, algorithms of
   mathematics yet also software that models a cryptographic process, to
   encrypt and decrypt information. and so it has been questioned - how
   are these signs themselves modeled in terms of their truth, or has this
   not occurred and potentially ungrounded 'data' and beliefs are the
   default, as this relates to language, observation, and relations that
   are the basis for this cryptographic exchange.
   thus a question of [code] could be removed from consideration of the
   truth of the symbols and signs used in these interactions, their
   foundation, if they are actually accounted for in their truth, grounded
   or ungrounded, as this relates to issues of security, secrecy, privacy,
   and so on. and so a default condition seemingly exists, where this code
   itself, programming, and software/hardware solutions could potentially
   be ungrounded, if they are operating within frameworks and context of
   partial-truth (pT), versus a model that is empirical grounded, not just
   in terms of the mathematics as 1=1, further on to account for 1=truth.
   which seems to be missing in all such equations, as representations can
   be detached from their accounting.
   and so the bulletproof ideology could exist that mathematics equals
   strong code, on the basis of 'belief in mathematics' that could tend
   towards the ideological. yet in this way, functions beyond proof and
   other dynamics may rely on a theorized capacity and theorized security
   framework that itself is the weakness, as pT=/T, as this structuralizes
   a basis for exploitation.
        [code] ---> mathematics
   so it is to question a prevailing condition or potential assumption
   that the simple act of representing reality can be equated with reality
   itself as a belief system, that becomes faith based, or based on
   personal trust issues as a security model. the more esoteric the
   mathematic equations or code, perhaps the more secure, if it were not
   involving rigor, though that appears opposite the nature of the
   discipline or its practicioners and developers, in that a community
   overviews and oversees development of the crypto and its security and
   integrity is also a basis for their own.
        [code] ---> mathematics  == security
   so a presumption could exist that the involvement or role of
   mathematics in cryptography is how it establishes its security. and
   this text is to call this fundamental or foundational notion into
   question. is it really true?
   another way of evaluating this condition is that 1=1 would be the basis
   for establishing security. and mathematically it could represent
   'truth' via this correspondence or pattern matching of [signs].
   and yet in an ungrounded condition, pattern matching of [sign]=[sign]
   can equate with 'truth' via its representation, yet not its actuality
   beyond the signage itself, thereby [1]=[1] could remain variable and
   only in a context of pseudo-truth by default. if ["sign"] is not
   accounted for in a shared empirical model. it is just language then,
   communication at a given surface-level interpretation. there is the
   missing dimension of philosophy that validates the truth it potentially
   involves. it is not just about signs -- their truth must accounted for
   beyond this immediate level of calculation. it involves and requires
   more consideration and evaluation.
        [code] ---> mathematics  != security
   in other words it is to propose that 'truth' is not by default within
   the signs used to represent a situation, because they can be ungrounded
   and function as if literature - describing a situation, though it
   involves variability by default. an issue of relativistic observation
   and how the data that is modeled is accounted for, removed of error or
   reliant upon it, and thus the gap between what is real and what is
   represented is at issue.
   it would seem to involve 'pattern matching' as a concept, the basis for
   the ability to establish 1=1 correlations in terms of number and its
   processing via symbols and other signs that map into the world and
   manipulate these relations and frameworks. and thus as stated, this A=A
   consideration is of the domain of establishing truth via logical
   reasoning, and thus a realm of thinking about concepts and ideas is
   involved, underneath the establishing of these mathematical models and
   processes. the ideas involved in these relations, as they become
   formalized. there is incoherence at this level, as currently the
   ideology of binarism make this connection an issue of shared belief in
   an approach, versus its truth beyond a given boundary.
        [code] ---> mathematics (concepts)
   so it is to question what is going on at a more fundamental,
   foundational level prior to this cryptographic modeling of information,
   such that What If the concepts themselves are ungrounded in some way,
   such that variables or representative signs or equations may not be by
   default /empirical/ and instead could exist in domains of relativistic
   skew, distortion, and bias in hidden ways that could also be exploited
   or subverted. thus while the [signs] may be operational, are they
   actually grounded in truth or some belief system that equates with
   truth, because it is assumed to exist in the signage and not beyond it.
   in the manipulations not what is referenced.
        [code] ---> mathematics ('concepts')
   thus to consider the deeper truth involved in such conceptualization,
   and this relates number to letter in terms of its use as signage, as
   both of these can function as language systems that are in ways
   integrated, yet assumed to be differentiated at the level of
   mathematics and, say, writing a novel or short-story fiction as this is
   believed different than novel  algorithms and exploratory equations and
   theoretical proofs. what if the mathematical viewpoint is ungrounded or
   relativistic, for instance, or that the literature could be more
   objective than equations filled with numbers
   ultimately, the mathesis involved appears to not differentiate a model
   of empirical truth in terms of A=A equivalence, from either math or
   language in that both could be evaluated in this same context from the
   beginning. a shared modeling in other words, potentially. so the
   alphanumeric code could be integrated at a substructural level to the
   [signage] that differentiates the mathematic and linguistic, yet this
   could also be a false perspective or inaccurate belief and mistaken
   assumption- perhaps they are one system
   so where this is going is to consider a particular existing viewpoint
   and interpretative framework for crypto, especially as defined by
   computers and peripherals, that establishes a fixed idea about what it
   is and involves and yet may involve these hidden boundaries that are
   also warped or biased towards certain interactions or investigations
   and can disallow others
       [code] ---> mathematics (algebra)
   an example is if considering a given approach to crypto involves
   algebraic functions as a paradigm as this relates to computation. this
   approach then becomes the context for evaluation and mediation of
   representative [signs] that may also be bounded in their interpretation
   in this way, due to the delineation between mathematical and linguistic
   data. the "algebra" may only be conceptualized and believed to function
   at the unit of [signs] and their manipulation as signs, and not involve
   algebraic computations within the [signage] itself, potentially, in
   terms of subsign units.
   this is to attempt to convey that a boundary condition could be upheld
   that views and models language as inviolable in terms of certain
   existing rules such that a [word] is viewed as a unit, and not
   considered in its inherent  variability in terms of this same potential
   algebraic functioning. in that the math is the math and the language is
   the linguistics, and the math is doing things to the language based on
   particular established relations and boundaries about what these
   relations and how they are believed to function based on convention if
   not ideological views and understanding. it is very abstract and
   perhaps inaccurate as stated here, yet seeks to ask- to what extent is
   the information viewed passive, inert, and non-meaningful, as this
   relates to its transformation (encryption) and reconstitution
   (decryption). where is the boundary for this transmutative relation and
   dynamics: is it inherently what mathematics does to language, from an
   outside-in approach, such that mathematics acts upon the [signs], or
   might it potentially involve accessing an inherent mathematical
   structure within language itself, and thus a different boundary or
   relation could allow the language itself to be the basis for the
   algorithms and equations, or to bridge across these in a different,
   more integrated and meaningful way.
   it makes little sense without visualizing it, yet email flintworks this
   era  of devolving infrastructure and tools involve make it difficult to
   convey in the given medium, thus limiting what can be easily accurately
   shared and in what ways- forcing the perspective for signage, and thus
   relationships
        [code] ---> mathematics (geometry)
   likewise, if cryptographic operations involved a geometric modeling of
   data this could also apply to how the content of the encryption scheme
   then is evaluated and processed. and again, an issue of boundaries. how
   are the [signs] considered in terms of the language or messaging
   involved. is this an outside operation of geometry that transforms
   'information' which is measured by units of words and sentence
   structures and their formatting, or may it potentially involve more
   than this, such that beyond this limit, a subsign geometric structure
   could exist and be connected to, and become a basis for this
   transformational processing. thus the 'truth' of the signs as these
   relate in across the conventional line separating mathematics and
   linguistics, in terms of a shared patterning that involves both
   domains.
        [code]  ==  (mathematic & linguistic)
   so if considering the issue of boundaries and representation, and how
   logic establishes these structures of observation and perception and
   modeling, that perhaps code itself, in its truth, involves a more fluid
   interaction in these domains than the traditional viewpoint can
   acknowledge, as this relates to the concepts involved and how they are
   approached. for instance computation or equations or algorithms, how
   data is processed, encrypted
   in terms of pattern matching (A=A), this could span a model of both
   code as a mathematic and linguistic structure, given 3-value and
   N-value logic. in this way, the [sign] itself could not only have a
   mathematic operation that is transforming it from the outside or
   external boundary, and instead this processing could occur inside, and
   consist of its own equations, based upon inherent calculative
   dimensions of its symbolic or sign-based linguistic structuring (as
   language). in other words, a [word] could have calculative and
   computational potential built-into it, in terms of its patterning and
   yet if the word is not allowed to be evaluated beyond its whole
   conception, the subsign structuring may be by default off-limits or
   made inaccessible. this is to include smaller units than the word as
   sign, to include even more basically letters, whereby for example the
   letter [Z] may only be evaluated in terms of its being 'z' and not its
   components or ~various structural relations with other letters, such as
   S|Z or N/Z or numbers: Z|5 and Z-2. though of course there is more to
   it than this, because the same structure can be taken apart and
   evaluated in its individual components: -/_ or > and <, etc
        [code] --->  pattern matching
   so the idea is that programming itself is based within code and issues
   of how it is modeled and how it represents the world, and it is to
   question if this is actually truly grounded or based in an ideological
   belief system. and so it is assumed there is partial grounding, in some
   ways, though a realm of error or a gap exists between what is modeled
   and what exists (pT=/T) and this includes the conceptualization of code
   itself as signage
   likewise, the default boundaries of this code could effect how it is
   both managed and processed, within what parameters. and thus the heavy
   reliance on mathematics as if the basis for this strength, yet the same
   potential as a weakness if it too is ungrounded or only partially so,
   in terms of the potential for exploits based on these errored notions
   and beliefs. (A=B)
   the cryptographic consideration in this scenario then, of how signs are
   processed and conceived of, as units to be transformed by equations, as
   if the basis for objectivity, yet not accounting for this in logic
   itself (T) beyond the level of the [signage], such that pattern
   matching of signs is believed of direct equivalence with truth itself,
   thus 1=1 is truth, yet not taking into account what this potentially
   represents, in its truth
   and perhaps this is the issue with language and observation as a
   context for the mathematic, and how internal processing of a person is
   externalized  and thus ungrounded views and beliefs can be made
   structural and equated with [signs] via shared assumptions and
   viewpoints, that because they are shared and agreed upon, are
   themselves believed to be true. binary logic and ideology are what
   allows this perception as a default condition, yet it can be and likely
   is ungrounded and based within relativism, automatically, or in other
   words, occupies a framework in pseudo-truth that continually is
   expanded upon via endless viewpoints that together in their inaction
   with other such views, even as agreed upon and confirmed as shared
   observation, tends towards nothingness (0) as a perspective instead of
   towards truth (1)
        [code] ---> (signs/symbols)
   thus it is to consider the code in terms of this issue of signage and
   of boundaries, as it involves interpretation beyond these, to what they
   are referencing, where their truth can be accounted for, in its
   accuracy as a model or representation. ungrounded relativism has no
   need of this extra step, and in this way mathematics can freely
   function as if writing..
   thus the vital issue of error-checking and correction of code at the
   level of signs used to represent ideas and concepts (mathematics,
   crypto models) as this exists beyond equations and algorithms and into
   a realm of ideas, how truth is evaluated, and the requirement of this
   in terms of security
   all of this to establish and allow a conceptualization that follows,
   that considers programming and code for cryptography in what may be
   perceived as an off-limits consideration- that of typography.
   --- crypto.typologic ---
   in the same way that crypto is conceptualized to be related to
   mathematics,  it is also proposed typography has connected structural
   relevance to this crypto~graphic inquiry
        [crypto] ---> [mathematics]
   in other words, in the linguistic context that also establish and
   define approaches to cryptologic systems and their cryptographic
   conventions, it is to consider the boundaries separating their
   interactions...
        [crypto] ---> [linguistics]
   in other words, what if at the level of representation within code
   itself there is a boundary or limit or threshold condition upheld by
   convention that is itself arbitrary, a forced perspective even, and
   that it could be holding back other options and perspectives for the
   questioning involved...
   for instance, encryption that involves algebraic and geometric
   operations and functions, as these may be bound to mathematical
   transformation of signage, yet at a certain bounded condition, outside
   or upon the sign itself or at its periphery, versus within it, in terms
   of its subsign dynamics or subsign meaning
        [crypto] ---> [mathematics] --> [signage]
   this approach is essentially to consider the relation between
   mathematics and language, in a context of linguistics, whereby a
   calculus could exist that bridges the distance between what is
   traditionally viewed as the objective (A=A) and the subjective (A=B) as
   this corresponds with numbers and letters, here in a context of signs
   and symbols or various patterning
        [crypto] ---> [math/linguistics] ---> [signage]
   what if, for instance, the context for evaluation of data,
   pre-encryption, was based in a combined A=A boundary established by
   *mathesis*, such that the signs evaluated and transformed had this
   larger dimensionality involved in the initial consideration, versus
   bounding of the linguistic within the mathematic, potentially, as a
   set(subset) relation: mathematic(language)
   in this way, equations could be limited, skewed, or bounded by a
   particular relativistic interpretation that may assume accuracy due to
   shared views yet be based upon or rely upon mistaken assumptions while
   believed true, even while signs themselves may exist or persist beyond
   these boundaries and be accounted for otherwise, yet not evaluated due
   to being off-limits
        [crypto] ---> [geometry/algebra] ---> [signage]
   thus the consideration of signs and collections of signage within
   crypto communications and messaging could exist in a calculative
   context, yet this could involve both mathematic -and- linguistic
   computations, by default, yet in terms of software evaluations may bias
   a mathematic approach to establishing equations and algorithms in terms
   of numbers and not letters due to convention and an inherited mindset
   for what parameters exist and how computation takes place, at the level
   of pattern recognition of signs yet not of the underlying truth these
   signs map to and reference, and in this disconnection, the potential
   for a representational short-circuiting between what is represented and
   calculated and what is actually real, true. and thus ungrounded
   observation and computation, as this leads to relations and crypto
   exchange that is insecure by design, versus a model that is empirically
   grounded and error-corrected and constant under evaluation in terms of
   its truth, including that of its content, the signs it involves
        [crypto] ---> [linguistic] ---> [signage]
   it is in this conflicted condition that the linguistic evaluation of
   signs can establish a foundation for truth via the de|con-struction of
   signs into their more elemental armatures. and this evaluation can
   occur in terms of various structures, such as nouns or verbs, or
   sentence tree diagrams, or hundreds of other approaches to evaluate how
   language is structured and how this maps into meaning and its
   verification of some perceived truth, though this could still be at the
   level of pattern matching of signs, and not of actual knowledge itself.
   such that a boundary may exist for mimicry-based AI versus intuitive
   computations that are based on a comprehensive model of grounded
   empirical knowledge, due to this gap and approach to computation, say
   reliance on binary approaches and constraints to force viewpoint, etc
        [crypto] ---> linguistic  (algebraic/geometric)
   so all of this background text is required to establish a given
   framework to evaluate a pending alternative conceptualization that
   considers and recontextualizes cryptology within a computational
   context of linguistics, yet potentially in a territory beyond existing
   perspective that involves subsign computations that are not mapped into
   traditional adjective/noun and other existing models, yet can likewise
   potentially be interconnected with them in various structural
   entanglements, as patterns collide, form, and mutate based upon
   relations and dynamics of sign-al processing.
   in other words: why not have algebraic and geometric functions and
   ~various operations within the signage itself, instead of at a
   protected boundary that limits such computation to a realm of numeracy,
   for instance. why not run an algorithm that transforms or relates or
   transforms subsign units, whether letters or words or sentence or
   paragraphs or all of these together (in terms of nested
   superset-set-subset dynamics), such that the [signage]  is itself
   transformed, encrypted, versus a secondary wrapper or envelope or
   container that "represents" this encryption of plain-text interior
   content
   one approach to this, of a vast innumerable many, would be to evaluate
   the typographic condition of code itself, as a basis for what is and
   what can be ~programmed, in what terms and parameters, based on how
   tools function and how the cryptologic and cryptographic situation is
   conceptualized...
        [crypto] ---> [typography] ---> [signage]

   in other words the geometry of signs themselves, letters as with
   numbers (though to focus on only the former as the primary example)
   have within their patterning an implicit structure that graphically
   relates to other alphanumeric characters, and thus the unit of measure,
   whether individual letter or their combination into words, can become a
   basis for evaluating these relational dynamics in terms of shared
   dimensionality, the shared scaffolding of logic connection that
   pre-exists other evaluations else informs it and can provide additional
   framework to map onto considerations whereby letters and numbers
   themselves are entangled in their connectedness and likeness and
   unlikeness as patterns, and this is inherently ~variable
   such that a letter such as 'y' may relate to the letter 'v' in one
   context whereas if rotated may relate to the letter 'h'. this
   transformation is inherent in all letters and their combination. such
   that letters alone may have properties, though so too words, via
   ambigrams or other evaluations. yet the question goes further than
   this, and into a realm of abstraction that is perhaps approximate to
   moving from a question of typography from an interpretation of fonts
   and font styles, to that of abstract patterning that may no longer be
   legible as a decipherable language, due to the potential to break apart
   each letter into subsign units, say a capital letter L into components:
   | _
   and in this way, how might [code] and geometric calculation exist in
   such a transmutational context of alphanumerics that break the model of
   literacy or go beyond its existing boundary, into other realms of
   interpretation. such that the ascender and descender, mean line,
   baseline and median, and arms, spans,bowls, shoulders, counters, and
   terminals become graphic units that are potentially computational, if
   they are standardized and aligned. and this is what the HIOX model of
   alphanumerics opens up and allows yet it could go to a much higher
   level of resolution given the details of language and how these sign
   systems exist across all language, potentially, mapping into a master
   symbol that reverse engineers all language in a single view
   in this way, from [code] to [mastercode] if not many relativistic codes
   into a shared framework of a grounded empirical model that is based
   within and references the same evaluation of (paradoxical) truth in its
   pattern matching. this is ancient stuff, the ideas involved formatting
   civilization
   The Orphic Trilogy,  Cabaret, GiGi
   Π Ω δ