The Voynich Ninja

(17-05-2019, 12:31 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.When I see a gallow glyph though, I think the shape of the top loops is often influenced by the fact that it connects to the other loop. 

If the gallow is a single glyph, then the shape of the top left part should not be looked at as if it appeared in isolation.

I think the shape of the top loops is influenced a little by the fact that it connects to the other loop in so far as it is a question of fluidity i.e. it probably affects the extent to which the angles can be a little curved at times.

If the gallow is a single glyph, then I think the shape of the top left part can still reasonably be looked at as if it appeared in isolation i.e. whether we have a triangle or not.

I think we have so many examples of the top left loops that we can look at them in aggregate and deduce the ideal shape the author is trying to draw. Which I think is a "4" shape or if you prefer a triangle shape. From one shape it could be hard to tell, but from over 1000 examples I think it should be possible to come to a precise conclusion. One could conclude, though I don't think so, that there is more than one kind of top left loop and so there are at least two separate version of a glyph like the 't' shape.

(17-05-2019, 11:33 AM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As an example to define an "8" shape we could possibly use an equation like:

y^4 = a^2(y^2-x^2)

^ means to the power of. (Where the letter a is a constant.)

This requires no references to scripts.

I would think many, if not all, Voynichese shapes could be defined in this kind of way.

Well, of course we can. All the VMS glyphs could be mathematically modeled. That's what I do for a living. I'm a software developer in the graphics field.


But that's not what you were asking in this thread.

You were asking our subjective opinions on whether we thought the VMS shape looked like a "q" or like a "4". In your title you said this:

Quote:Mark: The top left hand loop of the gallows characters is a 4. Who disagrees?

I think one of the reasons we are having trouble communicating is because it is a moving target. First of all you didn't provide enough context for us to answer to your satisfaction. And then you changed the question along the way without informing us that it's not the same one you asked in the first post, and confusing us by referring to scripts in the following post when actually all you want to discuss is the relative geometry.

JKP: The heading of this thread could not be a few paragraphs long, so I made it a sentence.

Looking like and geometry are the same thing. A square looks a certain way as does a "4" shape.

That is precisely what I was always asking. It is not a moving target it only seems that way as I have needed to endlessly clarify for you. Other people seem have picked up what I am talking about e.g. Don just recently. I have not changed the question. I mentioned scripts as there was a lack of understanding as to why I am interested in this question, but this question does not pertain to scripts. I am sorry if you are still confused, I have done my best to clarify it, but you have been repeatedly digressing from the topic. My focus hasn't changed.

Quote:Mark Knowles: Looking like and geometry are the same thing.

No, they are not.

"Looking like" is subjective (at least it is the way you asked it in your title and your initial posts). It has a strong component of human perception and judgment.

Optical illusions demonstrate this. Colors can be misread, motion can appear from static lines. In geometry, the diagram on the left has a contrasting figure in the middle. To some people looking at it, it does not. Most people looking at the figures on the right think the center dots appear to be different sizes, but in geometry they are not:

                                                        



Geometry is not the same as "looking like". Geometry is a mathematical discipline related to shapes and their arrangement. What something looks like can be mathematically defined but there's no certainty that the results will equate to the opinions of individuals.


..
It might be more productive to start a new thread on the relative geometry of VMS glyph shapes instead of asking our opinion of whether we think the left side of t looks like a 4 (which you originally mentioned in the context of scripts even though you later recanted and said you don't want us to evaluate it in the context of scripts). Maybe that way you will get more targeted answers.

JKP: Yes it is true that if one is short signted or long sighted or colour blind things look different. Yes optical illusions do exist too. Different animals see different colour spectrums. However these are all pointless digressions. You really want to argue for the sake of it as far as I can tell by making irrelevant unnecessarily pedant points and trying to draw the discussion towards a completely separate subject.

I am very well familiar with the subject of projective geometry, which should be obvious.

I had targeted answers from Anton, Don and others. I am not sure you are really interested in giving targeted answers, but you seem to be interested in a neverending debate about nothing rather than the issue at hand. It is deeply frustrating and time wasting.

It would be a great mistake to start a new thread as you would persist to try and sidetrack that from the subject at hand.

Despite the sheer number of your comments you have almost contributed nothing to the subject. I am interested in the subject of the thread not wasting time having an argument for the sake of it.

(17-05-2019, 10:05 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....

I am very well familiar with the subject of projective geometry, which should be obvious.

I had targeted answers from Anton, Don and others. I am not sure you are really interested in giving targeted answers, but you seem to be interested in a neverending debate about nothing rather than the issue at hand. It is deeply frustrating and time wasting.

...

It's not very grownup to always blame me rather than clarifying your statements for all of us. I speak for many people who aren't bothering to post because they don't understand your question.

And if you look back through the thread, you will see that I did give you a targeted answer (short answer...). No point in pretending I didn't.


The one who is wasting our time is you. It's impossible to give an answer to someone who says, "looking like is the same as geometry". It's not.

JKP: You don't have to comment. I am not forcing you to comment. I have not asked you to comment. I have only replied to your comments as I always do, I don't initiate discussions with you personally. You are wasting your time and mine. If you still don't understand my question then you still won't after 100 more pages of comments.

At one point if you thought you had given a targeted answer, it is telling that you seemed to understand the question perfectly at that time, then you should have left it there and not tried to divert the discussion into an unrelated argument.

Now you still don't wish to discuss the subject directly. I have a life to live and I don't want to waste it in pointless arguments that have nothing to do with the subject.

Every time I end up being dragged by you into pointless discussions. If you really wanted to avoid these discussions with me then you should have learnt by now to give me a wide berth, if you find them unproductive.

(17-05-2019, 10:26 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.JKP: You don't have to comment. I am not forcing you to comment. I have not asked you to comment. ...

Is this a backhanded way of saying, "Please don't question my ideas because I don't want to admit some of them are unclear and I don't want to have to clarify them?"

I made a suggestion that you could start a thread of VMS glyph geometry. It might be more productive. That was a sincere suggestion.

But if you believe that "looking like" and "geometry" are the same thing, then the point is moot. There's no way to have a discussion if people disagree on basic points of fact, but I wouldn't have known that if I hadn't asked for clarification.

So now I know. Mark Knowles doesn't distinguish between "looking like" (subjective perception) and geometry. So make sure you let people know that next time you start a thread related to geometry and then there will be no more misunderstandings.

JKP: Look I think life will be better for both of us if you just make a point to decide to stop commenting on my posts or comments. I just find these discussions with you unproductive.

I am happy for other people to question my ideas. I don't think questioning my ideas in a productive way is your focus, but rather just having an argument about anything.

---

I have just seen you have commented on my comment regarding whether we should have empathy for Gerard Cheshire's situation, unsurprisingly you weren't inclined to empathise. So you will argue about any topic. I imagine I could make some tangential reference to politics and you would try to draw me into a political argument.