On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: > Goethe wrote: > >> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Elliott Hird wrote: >>> Base64 is ridiculously well known. >> >> AVPR GEL, OHG V GNXR GUR SBYYBJVAT NPGVBA: > (rot13: "Nice try, but I take the following action:") >> J DBMM GPS KVEHFNFOU PO UIF GPMMPXJOH TUBUFNFOU: > (rot1 or rot25: "I call for judgement on the following statement:") >> JXYI YI JXU IJQJUCUDJ ED MXYSX Y SQBBUT VEH ZKTWUCUDJ XUHU. > (rot10 or rot16: "This is the statement on which I called for > judgement here.") > > However this is decided, I would put base64 and rot<N> on the > same side of the borderline.
Trivial but was done as "rot 13->12->11" hence countdown... the question more interesting to me between the second and the third: why wouldn't you stop at the second rot (revealing "I CFJ...") and claim the CFJ statement is the still-cyphered (and thus nonsense) third string? Also, a prize for anyone who finds a text string that forms two different reasonably intelligible Agoran actions for different rot<N>'s. Non-rot caesar substitutions would probably be not-too-hard to do this with and so that might cross the line into unambiguity... or maybe AGAINT has always been a rot code for something. -G.
