15-09-2020, 08:34 PM
17-09-2020, 12:02 PM
I have thought about it. In my eyes it is no longer possible for me to defend my point of view at voynich.ninja. Therefore I have decided to leave.
Good bye,
Torsten Timm
Good bye,
Torsten Timm
17-09-2020, 01:43 PM
17-09-2020, 02:55 PM
In my opinion, the forum is poorer for this loss.
17-09-2020, 03:14 PM
Yeah, but we're all individual researchers. If he wants to leave that's up to him, and if he wants to come back that's fine too.
17-09-2020, 03:35 PM
(17-09-2020, 02:55 PM)DONJCH Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In my opinion, the forum is poorer for this loss.
I agree. I certainly did not and do not want Torsten to leave the forum. Of course we all need to take breaks from time to time. But Torsten has produced interesting material in his papers, and it is certainly a worthwhile part of the discussion. My suggestion that perhaps another colleague of Torsten's could explain his ideas on this forum, was not at all a suggestion that Torsten should not continue to participate in the discussion as well.
Of course, if Torsten stays in the forum as we hope he does, and continues to make his arguments for his theories, then naturally other participants will continue to respond and debate and make counter-arguments and disagree and criticize his arguments where they believe it is warranted. Nobody can be expected to soften their responses or disagreements or criticisms just to prevent a person from leaving the forum.
With that said, I find the discussion quite interesting and I very much hope Torsten stays here. For example, I for one was hoping to hear what Torsten had to say about the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. as a portion of all [ch], vs. the relative frequency of [ockh] and [octh] as a portion of all [ckh] and [cth]. (Expressed another way, after [c] the overwhelmingly most common following glyph is [h] in 87% of occurrences, but after [oc], the next glyph is [h] in only 30% of occurrences, while it is [k]/[t]/[p]/[f] in 70%.) I do not see how an algorithmic generating method such as Torsten proposes would logically prefer not to add [o] before [ch], but would have no such avoidance of adding [o] before [ckh] and [cth]. But perhaps there is a logical explanation, and the discussion would be helpful in evaluating both the generating algorithm method and the verbose cipher theories in the context of which I made this observation.
17-09-2020, 04:16 PM
(17-09-2020, 03:35 PM)geoffreycaveney Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I for one was hoping to hear what Torsten had to say about the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. as a portion of all [ch], vs. the relative frequency of [ockh] and [octh] as a portion of all [ckh] and [cth].
Hi Geoffrey,
in the first page of this thread, Emma pointed out that Timm and Schinner's software does not reproduce the word structure of Voynichese. You are mentioning a particular instance of this word-structure mismatch ('och' is ten times more frequent in the software's output than in Q20), so Torsten's replies to Emma also apply to your observation.
17-09-2020, 04:37 PM
I mean, could it be an aesthetic consideration?
Anyway, I generally keep quiet when the big folks are debating.
But it seems to me that there needs to be a set of rules in addition to autocopy in order to produce authentic Voynichese.
I would love to know what such a set would look like in its most minimal and concise form.
Anyway, I generally keep quiet when the big folks are debating.
But it seems to me that there needs to be a set of rules in addition to autocopy in order to produce authentic Voynichese.
I would love to know what such a set would look like in its most minimal and concise form.
17-09-2020, 06:08 PM
@Torsten
I am here to find the truth, not to make my point.
If someone has a different opinion and can justify it, it is fine with me and I am grateful for the teaching.
Otherwise I wish you all the best for the future.
PM
I am here to find the truth, not to make my point.
If someone has a different opinion and can justify it, it is fine with me and I am grateful for the teaching.
Otherwise I wish you all the best for the future.
PM
17-09-2020, 06:18 PM
It shouldn't really matter if the author of the article does or does not make other people believe what he does (that the VM is an algorithmically generated hoax). In the end of the day, this is at present like a discussion of whether there is or isn't a God. We just don't have enough evidence.
But... what I was hoping for was more development around the theories of the auto-copying hypothesis. Perhaps a few modifications could make it work better. So because of that I am sorry that he decided to leave. As it is now, our opinions on the matter will likely remain varied. But if more facts gets put into the theory that modified it a little, maybe it would fit the observations better and could be more convincing.
But... what I was hoping for was more development around the theories of the auto-copying hypothesis. Perhaps a few modifications could make it work better. So because of that I am sorry that he decided to leave. As it is now, our opinions on the matter will likely remain varied. But if more facts gets put into the theory that modified it a little, maybe it would fit the observations better and could be more convincing.