29-08-2019, 07:18 AM
Torsten: re-reading your 2019 article and looking at your source code, you term certain high-frequency pairs of glyphs (such as ‘ol’ and ‘dy’) as ‘ligatures’, and yet treat them in the same way as ‘o’ and ‘l’ (i.e. individual glyphs).
* Why was it necessary for you to treat these ‘ligatures’ in a special way in your paper?
* Why would the original person doing the auto-copying have treated them in a special way? (They are not consistently physically joined on the page, so are not actual ‘ligatures’.)
* Why are there so many manually added substitution cases in your code on github?
* Do you not suspect that the presence of so many enforced manual adjustments might be a result of overfitting on your part?
* When your analysis code is so intensely manually manipulated, how is it that you can describe your explanation as simple?
* Why was it necessary for you to treat these ‘ligatures’ in a special way in your paper?
* Why would the original person doing the auto-copying have treated them in a special way? (They are not consistently physically joined on the page, so are not actual ‘ligatures’.)
* Why are there so many manually added substitution cases in your code on github?
* Do you not suspect that the presence of so many enforced manual adjustments might be a result of overfitting on your part?
* When your analysis code is so intensely manually manipulated, how is it that you can describe your explanation as simple?