--- code characteristics --- i was going to attempt a real-world example though it is too complicated without computer tools and lack of mathematical skills to provide a deep enough reference for real world crypto requirements. there are several ideas for using HIOX as calculus and set theory permutations that could have direct relevance yet to actually get into it this functionality is more than email provides as a communications medium. thus, in considering this possibility a generic example was considered in the typical approach, to introduce a programming language. yet even this is limited and tends to the computational enigma or knotted condition inherent in the dynamics it involves. and thus, instead of providing one of likely thousands of approaches, it was instead decided that a limit of trying to approach this situation would be provided, to get at the unique existing conditions of considering the mathematic of language and vice versa. HELLO WORLD if considering the above statement, what is interesting to me about their combined signage is that 7 of the 10 letters can be resolved in within the numeral '8' which also is the seven-segment LED display. thus the letters (H, E, L, L, O, O, L) can all be compressed into a single symbol and in its partial capacity to represent specific alphabetic patterns -not all- the domain for potentially mapped letters into a mystery word has less than 26 options of the alphabet itself: 88888 W8R8D this assumes the rectilinear seven-segment LED display or other rectilinear alphanumeric character is the basis for a common typographic standard. it has a Wheel of Fortune gameshow aspect to it, certainly. consider then a general wildcard condition, any letter number or symbol, in comparison: ***** W*R*D what does it mean. well, if it was known that there are two words, and the number count of a shared symbol containing the necessary letter is 7, then it narrows down this potential for 26+ letters +10 numbers +other symbols into a realm tending towards a limited alphabet, focused on letters alone. and if this was a known structure, then evaluation could proceed based on what is most likely within these given parameters. 88888 W8R8D for the second word ('WORLD') the more intense HIOX or Union Jack 16 segment LED display symbol would be necessary to map the remaining letters (W, R, D). thus consider that two different patterns potentially exist that could map the two words in a permutive range, such that: 88888 *8*8* in this example the asterisk would actually be the Union Jack or 16 segment display, while the '8' would be equivalent to a 7 segment display. a number sign is going to be substituted instead, to not mistake it for a general wildcard existing beyond the alphanumeric framework... 88888 #8#8# so imagine that the number sign above equates with the HIOX symbol for the remaining letters W, R, D. while the first word and several letters of the second are contained in the generic 7 segment display and its alphabet, it begins in a minimal condition already compared to the more elaborate 16 segment display. yet if considering the letters W, R, D within that context those letters when overlaid in its structure do not require the full symbol for their combined representation, that can be compressed in a shared state of superposition. please look at the following mapping of the 'segments' as annoted at from the website of a 16 segment display manufacturer... APPLICATION NOTE 1131 http://www.maximintegrated.com/app-notes/index.mvp/id/1131 each of the sixteeen segments has its own specific letter or letter-number combination to help describe what parts of the LED are turned on and off, to help map this to pin-out diagrams and programming instructions for an IC display driver else microcontroller. considering that the remaining letters in the second word (W, R, D) do not require all sixteen segments to be illuminated at once to contain all of these three letters as a potential query reply, a specific symbol could be mapped out of this 16 segment display that is closer to a 7 segment LED display ('8') with some extra detailing, equivalent to a connection from the upper left to lower right, and from lower left to middle center. yet as the 16 segment display is wider and bifurcated down the centerline (to allow letters such as W to exist, as a mirroring of two letters V|V), this comparison is only descriptive and would require the 16 segment display to start with, as the 7 segment has no diagonals or centerline to reference. alot of description that evaporates into abstraction, potentially- yet the specific idea of this is that a minimal number of segments can establish a referenceable symbol for the remaining letters W,R,D and that this is essentially a symbol 8' with a diagonal from top left to lower right, and from lower left to the middle, approximately. in the technical terms as it relates to the annotated segments from the url above: a1, a2, b, c, d1, d2, e, f, g1, g2, (which creates the equivalent to an 8 or letter B) -and- h, k, (first diagonal), m (second diagonal). this mapping of letters onto a minimized common symbol demonstates that the 16 segment display can be minimized to a smaller format 13 segments, that then limits the potential letters that could exist and be autogenerated via bit set evaluation of the placeholder symbol (#) so in other words, HELLO WORLD could be reduced to two symbols: 8,#, whereby the first contains 7 letters and the second, which is a stand-in for a 13 active segments of a sixteen segment LED display, is a custom symbol for the remaining three letters. it is important to make clear that a single symbol (HIOX, or Union Jack, equivalent to the 16 segment LED display) could render the entire statement HELLO WORLD via one symbol and yet that would look like this, to start: ##### ##### and thus the odds are much better with the following, where only a limited amount of letters are possible for a majority of the unknown characters... 88888 #8#8# the issue of structure is what is involved in this evaluation, as a hint or clue or patterning that can help consider ways that alphanumerics already relate in terms of their own internal structuring, as a display format. in case it is not readily evident what this implies, it is that those letters represented by the stand-in symbol '8' can only render a limited amount of letters, given specific rules. thus a 'W' cannot be rendered within that form, nor a letter 'V', etc. so it narrows down what letters could exist there. and likewise for the 13 segment custom symbol, an 'X' could not be rendered nor a 'T' or other letters. and thus while the probabilities for letter combinations are probably enormous (and this is provided as a test case for computer experiment, to gauge the numbers involved in a most simple display of words) there are many fewer options that exist between a combined 7-segment and 13-segment symbol permutation than a 7-segment and 16-segment display combined, given dictionaries that could find words that may fit the given criteria. so a kind of compression or packing and unpacking could exist in relation to words and symbols, and it is a question of how this is approach and how it is dealt with. if you have one symbol for both words the approach is moot, the patterns are structureless. whereas if a sequence occurs whereby an evaluation of text considers the structure of a statement, and then explores how this may be minimized into a smaller format, given rules, it would be possible to reduce the quantity of letters via such compression, into particular or peculiar symbols, that are mapped into or back onto sentences, that may have additional numeric or other instructions as a guide for this (perhaps a shared key even). in this way, the symbol 8# with 2,5 could carry the compressed statement though lacks arrangement or sequence information to where the 7-segment letters and 13-segment letters would be placed, such that various combinations could exist in two words of five letters each... 88888 #8888 8###8 88888 these are essentially impossible computations in terms of hundreds and thousands if not many more combinations of potential words and meanings, it could easily involve tens of thousands of [word1] [word2] sequences. instruction for two words, five letters each (2,5) requires an additional set of arrangement data, such that there are seven places for '8' and three for '#'... in other words, 7('8') and 3('#') 8888# ##888 #88#8 8888# the arbitrary examples shown demonstrate the variability for this mapping and thus the original words would not be possible given the sequence if it is not capable of regenerating the correct origional pattern (HELLO WORLD) so now this is getting complicated for a simple statement, such that 7('8'), 3('#') and (2,5) remain wihtin a realm of untethered abstraction. a further structure for symbol placement within words is required, to make sure that they are correctly placed or mapped into the linear arrangement. one way of doing this would be '8'{1-5,7,9} and '#'{6-10}, whereby: 2,5 ('8'{1-5,7,9}; '#'{6-10} ) the instructions: two words, five letters each, symbol '8' for letters 1-5 (first word), 7 and 9; symbol '#' for letters 6-10 (second word) 88888 #8#8# given these dynamics, and the geometrical structure inherent in letters and numbers, it would be possible to de|con-struct words and sentences into a more abstracted format that would not be readily decipherable, if the key to unpacking the data was not shared or available. this could be as simple as a minimal superposition of letters, say a J or L that are mirror-images in a given display font that could equate with a capital letter U. and thus the placement of the 'U' could stand for both of these letters. in this way it is a question of what structures are referenced and under what specific conditions, and this need not be limited by a particular display and could instead become an issue of dots and diagonals and vertical and horizontal bars that are detached from alphanumeric signs, if an algorithm exists to process statement into this abstraction and back out again. there are several ways to approach the original situation and this is only one partial approach. another would be to take the common letters of HELLO WORLD, and address the three common letters L and two letters O, such that: L,O (HE WRD) and then perhaps again the 'H' and 'E' could easily fit into a 7-segement LED display format ('8') and the WRD as before into the 13 segments ('#') of a Union Jack LED display... L,O ('8,#') and so it goes, such that the L,O, could be L,7 and yet combine into letter O, and whatever rules may exist or be applied in a given ruleset approach. the point is about existing patterns within language as a common structure or scaffolding that has geometrical attributes that can be harnessed and that has inherent meaning in the interrelational meanings between SIGNs, in that signs can exist within other signs, embedded and-or in superposition, and that these typographic or display characteristics can be harnessed, used, adapted, in terms of their transformative ability and capacity. perhaps the above example indicates that the algorithms would be larger than the statements, yet what if the distribution was offset somehow such that data could be compressed within a Menger sponge via superset(set(subset)) nesting via Fibonacci series, or some other approach. it may involve another consideration yet somewhere they could also be connected if a means of placing data was mapped similar to rules of a chess board and the arrangement of its pieces, yet with letters and numbers and symbols. the aspect of the puzzle, such that it there is a limit to its brute-force computation yet with the correct key can be deciphered or decrypted via computation, eventually to make its way into clear text. this could be an issue of manual analysis or involve many sequenced steps, where brute-force could never break the patterns down from their abstract condition because the particular perspective for the given instance is beyond the threshold needed to allow viable computational decypting- it is basically infinite. this generic abstraction is not particularly helpful yet it provides basic context for evaluation of beginning considerations, as simple as it gets in a larger realm of computers and algorithms. and perhaps this is nothing yet though if it is not an existing approach, it potentially offers something beyond the existing interpretation or limits for how data is considered in terms of its inherent signage, and whether this is hollow represetnation or filled with symbolism and meaning by default- and thus grounded in a deeper way in terms of its actual truth or floating in a subjective confined limit that contains interpretation and allows codes to be easily conceptualized within particular parameters and conventions that are already established. the short way of conveying the same idea is that the role of TYPOGRAPHY in relation to cryptography is vital in this approach, whereas its absence in crypto calculations would also signify a lack of depth in the language and calculations used, to those of iconic signs, not within their structures. in this way the calculative aspects of mathesis, of math-language dynamics within geometrical interrelation, via trans-formational and -mutational patterning, could within its abstraction, allow estoteric computations to occur beyond the known or perceivable or modeled boundary of cryptography, for those with the keys. and perhaps this is entirely of the traditional approach, the issues of compressing statements into another secret format, yet has this occured 'infra-letter' and 'infra-number' or has it remained bounded by letters and numbers, and thus not dealing with the structural segments that de|con-struct the entirety of language into smaller bits. and so that is the question and challenge and the insanity of the probabilities in computing what an ordinary sentence could be, even having the code and potentially even the key, and yet not the perspective to view it within. in other words, how is it known what plain text viewpoint is the correct one. and thus the crucial role of aesthetics and thresholds of shared literacy. (note: the above example does not consider what would be assumed involved missing steps, such as substitutions, mirroring, and other transformative approaches implicit in this calculability and hiding information within other information or altering its signage and default interpretation. it may not require computation for SMS conveyances though for twitter-level likely would involve significant processing, though potentially massive processing if trying to brute-force crack messages and it is proposed and hypothesized this could be made impossible, quite easily (via bit sets)) (one way to conceptualize it is expansion of a bit set in a bounded range, say uncompressing a bit.set string for between 3-10 letter words, and then the key would be an algorithm that hunts and pecks data out of the expanded field via particular algorithm, in this way gathering puzzle pieces within the noise field and reassembling them locally, else locating and mapping relations within the expanded interiority as a constellation or given viewpoint which could potentially shift given what key is activated, say for instance a superposition condition of mirroring, where meaning shifts given directionality and thus ambiguity is retained by default even if an observer has some of the puzzle, they may not have the right interpretation and thus multiple boundaries or mazes within labyrinths within funhouses with trapdoors leading to dungeons within castles, false perspectives, etc. the voyeur observer or surveiller not realizing they are trapped, if ever, until it is too late and their actions are bounded, further limited, led into closed rooms that get smaller and smaller with no escape possible. the danger here for the uninitiated and opponents would be following and trying to decipher the situation. this is bamboo spear jungle trap cryptography. once they think or believe they understand- it is over. as if a reverse-form of nihilism even. the transformation of one-point perspective that is ungrounded, focused on falsity and nothingness, as everything splays out the further it is approached, nothing relates to anything, everything relates with everything. madness. loss of coherence. pure paranoia. and then the clanking and sharpening of metal, ever louder, evermore near...) --- anomaly --- for sake of completeness in the previous HELLO WORLD example, it was also discovered that it is possible to compact everything into the 7-segment LED display or rectilinear number '8', if the ruleset and instructions allow for the rotation and upper- and lower-case variability. in this way... H E L L O 3 O r L d the number 3 stands-in for the letter W rotated sideways. and thus the way that this statement could be evaluated differs from the previous approach and involves different specific instructions, as would other methods. not mentioned in this approach would be the breakdown of letters into the corresponding segments and mapping these to particular letters in their various states of potential, whether mutation or transformed. and this could even be numerical, so that no words are visible in the messaging. --- note on equality --- all observations are not equal. nor are all observers equal in their POVs. the vavlue of the observations must be grounded within truth and related within an empirical structuring to evaluate views of a given perspective. and the views that are functioning in a minor truth or pseudo-truth or partial-truth are not -equal- to those that have removed falsity from the frameworks used to model and mediate and communicate this shared truth. it may not be a possible condition today, given tools and issues of literacy, and yet, those who defer to truth are not the same as those who deny it and use it to their onesided advantage to exploit reasoning via power politics. it is an important distinction that truth does not equal pseudo-truth, it does not equate with 'allowable falsity' as part of the shared relation. that is heresy as far as ideas go. errors should not be normalized yet those relying on errors could tend to believe they are equals with those who do not. the difference is that the people whose ideas are based within truth, built upon its foundation, are capable of debating the ideas and having them challenged - for the strength of the ideas is their truth, and thus the logical reasoning of hypotheses and conceptualization of reality in this condition -- removed of known warping, skew, distortion -- is the way of strengthening the ideas, which become robust through their fitness for accurately modeling a situation, and they can withstand critique and can be altered and improved, which is the obligation. whereas those who do not allow 'their ideas' to be evaluated are weak-minded and have weak-ideas that cannot withstand critique and falsification is disallowed, and thus the viewpoint is made infallible-- and yet this ungrounded relativism may still assume an equality with truth that is vetted beyond its boundary. this is an act of egotism and a conceit and form of narcissism. such views can be entirely defeated, the minor truth salvaged, yet the false worldview itself collapsed and utterly abolished for the false perspective it is. and thus "debate" within a non-binary logical framework is the threshold for the accountability and testing of the limits of a given pseudo-truth POV. in that, when reasoned outside the binary viewpoint and not allowed to rely on ideological opinions and 'true beliefs', the ones and zeros of the ideas themselves and the arguments can be dismantled and the minor truth (1) can be separated from the majority falsity (0) including lies, deception, and bad faith of intellectual posturing, and thus what is shared is truth (1) yet what is unshared and differentiated is the opponents reliance on lies and falsehoods and manipulating this truth to a onesided agenda, and that cannot simply be erased or equated with a more pure and honest pursuit in service to truth and its vital role in developing civilization, including morally and ethically. versus its corruption, bringing about its demise. these are not equal agendas or equal goals- they are antagonistic relations and thus those who serve falsity are not the same as those who serve truth. those who surveill and oppress those in service to truth, however relative their viewpoint is legitimized, are essentially enemies and opponents of this truth and are not equals are observers, thinkers, or doers. if someone does not recognize truth beyond their limited viewpoint they cannot be reasoned with, the only reasoning they recognize is power itself as truth, in that power determines what is real, what is true, what is good, etc. so this is to make a distinction between those who 'believe' things without the need for external verification of these same beliefs, as different from those who require this as a necessary process of self-auditing and accounting. in this way, when someone is pointing a cellphone to monitor you on the street, and tallying such data, they operate in a particular framework that is oppressive to others in the society, and their actions are not invisible nor without consequence. it is not simply a mistake or misinterpretation, yet this would be the relativists argument, trying to retain a shared set evaluation as if in-group when actively and parasitically hostile. (whats next- electroshock dog collars and invisible fencing for bad citizens?)these people are scum. there are leagues of citizen surveillers sustaining the embubbled false reality that cellphones and monitoring apps allow, as if subconscious to the surveillers even, as if a dream-state, as if no one notices them pointing their cellphone at people walking by, data paparazzi for the evil dictatorial takeover, these cyborg and mindless zombie the latest ground troops of successive invasions, large populations of drones that are pointing and clicking their binary ideology into existence, they are not 'traditional' citizens nor constitutionally constrained in their activities. nor should they be defended by these parameters either, for involvement in illegal offensive operations and cattle chute coordination of citizenry mapped to the warped and SUPERSECRET "encrypted" masterplan. T =/= pT empirical truth =/= relativistic pseudo-truth grounded observation =/= ungrounded observation truth =/= partial truth + massive falsehood honesty =/= lies, distortions, onesidedness MEDIOCRITY IS TYRANNY ---- Scholars in Bondage Dogma dominates studies of kink http://chronicle.com/article/Scholars-in-Bondage/139251/ Paprika, Babette's Feast, Koyaanisqatsi ¿ ç ñ
