(24-08-2020, 09:38 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I was basing that number of on some of the attempts I have seen over the years that have been discussed or presented online. It's just a general ballpark. Many have attempted it and only found a few. What I was trying to get across is that it's a challenging project.
So why is that figure based on other people's attempts and not your own? Surely your own attempt would be a better basis for working from as you seem to regard it as more complete than others.
I doubt any have put close to the time and effort into it that I have. It is insufferably boring if one has real attention to detail. I have not just matched, but also in addition to the 40%-45% I have listed possible though less clear matches even where there may be multiple, in short I have examined every single small plant and compared it with every single large plant to find the best match(es), sheer torture. Organising everything in a spreadsheet is tedious. I only have gone through this rigmarole as I really want the resultant data.
So you don't need to tell me it is a challenging project, but when it comes to Voynich research I hardly shy away from challenging projects.
(24-08-2020, 09:56 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (24-08-2020, 09:38 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I was basing that number of on some of the attempts I have seen over the years that have been discussed or presented online. It's just a general ballpark. Many have attempted it and only found a few. What I was trying to get across is that it's a challenging project.
So why is that figure based on other people's attempts and not your own? Surely your own attempt would be a better basis for working from as you seem to regard it as more complete than others.
I doubt any have put close to the time and effort into it that I have. It is insufferably boring if one has real attention to detail. I have not just matched, but also in addition to the 40%-45% I have listed possible though less clear matches even where there may be multiple, in short I have examined every single small plant and compared it with every single large plant to find the best match(es), sheer torture. Organising everything in a spreadsheet is tedious. I only have gone through this rigmarole as I really want the resultant data.
So you don't need to tell me it is a challenging project, but when it comes to Voynich research I hardly shy away from challenging projects.
It's an average. If 20 people find 10 matches and 1 person finds 30 matches, obviously the average will not be high. It's not an exact number, Mark. The number was in the context of a larger discussion about how it's a challenging project and also a discussion that we DO NOT KNOW how many the more dedicated researchers have found because research is not always published (or is not yet published). I've seen numerous attempts where people found only a handful of matches. In other words, you don't know if you have done the most dedicated research on this subject.
The over-riding message I was trying to get across is that until it is published, it is a self-generated number that has not been peer-reviewed. In other words, there is no way to know how well it will stand up to scrutiny. It's no different from Voynich "solutions". People are convinced they have solved it. When they publish it, other people have a different opinion.
Let me take this convenient opportunity to remind everybody that we have the You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. here in the forum. Somehow it has not become extremely popular though...
It is not so easy *not* to have a theory
It actually means to have rejected one's theory (or theories) because they turned out not to be tenable.
Of course I still have some theories. I just don't talk about them a lot.
When it comes to the authorship of the MS, I suspect that this is someone who is either barely know, or not known at all, from other historical sources.
Now this is an example of a theory that is not based on any data. It is just something that makes sense in a statistical manner. It is like a hunch. Many theories that are discussed here and elsewhere fall in the same category, i.e. not based on data but on hunches.
When it comes to the way the text was generated, I have a hypothesis that could work, on the basis of some very promising statistics. So this one is based on data, but I am very skeptical that it will turn out to be correct. The proof is entirely missing, and I am also not yet happy that it explains everything I know about the text.
I have a theory who sold the MS to Rudolf. This is based on data, but it is not confirmed.
I have a well advanced theory about what happened with the MS between 1870 and 1912, and where it was in the intervening time. This is based on a very large amount of documented facts, but also stories that could be just rumours. I have adapted it several times, and I had to ditch my (at the time) highly favoured theory in front of conflicting evidence.
(25-08-2020, 07:30 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.When it comes to the way the text was generated, I have a hypothesis that could work, on the basis of some very promising statistics.
Have you already written about this somewhere before? Or is it pending?
I'm sorry, this is not documented, but there are some examples in this thread:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
While it turns Italian into Voynich look-alike text, the exact inverse operation turns Voynichese into a text that has 1st and second order entropies that are perfectly normal for Latin, Italian or German.
The process can be tuned in many different ways, and it is impossible to try them all in a straightforward manner.
It is essentially a verbose encryption, similar to the stroke encoding that was proposed many years ago by Elmar Vogt.
Much more recently I found further hints, which are too difficult to explain briefly, but which suggest that the character basic shapes (i-based or c-based) may be meaningless and rather dictated by context, and ignoring them could lead to better statistics, again in a 'verbose cipher' scenario.
(25-08-2020, 01:39 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm sorry, this is not documented, but there are some examples in this thread:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
While it turns Italian into Voynich look-alike text, the exact inverse operation turns Voynichese into a text that has 1st and second order entropies that are perfectly normal for Latin, Italian or German.
The process can be tuned in many different ways, and it is impossible to try them all in a straightforward manner.
It is essentially a verbose encryption, similar to the stroke encoding that was proposed many years ago by Elmar Vogt.
Much more recently I found further hints, which are too difficult to explain briefly, but which suggest that the character basic shapes (i-based or c-based) may be meaningless and rather dictated by context, and ignoring them could lead to better statistics, again in a 'verbose cipher' scenario.
Well, let's see what you can come up with. A verbose substitution cipher has been proposed by quite a number of people, including myself, but maybe you can take the idea further, we will see. Certainly I think you are thinking along the right lines.
(25-08-2020, 07:30 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Of course I still have some theories. I just don't talk about them a lot.
I think not talking about theories is not necessarily a good idea.
Quote:
When it comes to the authorship of the MS, I suspect that this is someone who is either barely know, or not known at all, from other historical sources.
Now this is an example of a theory that is not based on any data. It is just something that makes sense in a statistical manner. It is like a hunch. Many theories that are discussed here and elsewhere fall in the same category, i.e. not based on data but on hunches.
On the basis of my theory it is clear that the key author is not well known though he is documented in the historical record, so on that basis I am inclined to concur. I suppose it depends what you mean precisely by "barely known".
Quote:I have a theory who sold the MS to Rudolf. This is based on data, but it is not confirmed.
Nevertheless it would be interesting to hear even if it is just speculation. Even if you are wrong it might give others an idea as to what the right answer might be, so you should not shy away of presenting an idea just because there is a possibility that it is wrong, I certainly wouldn't.
Quote:
I have a well advanced theory about what happened with the MS between 1870 and 1912, and where it was in the intervening time. This is based on a very large amount of documented facts, but also stories that could be just rumours. I have adapted it several times, and I had to ditch my (at the time) highly favoured theory in front of conflicting evidence.
For me personally these kind of historical details have very little interest, though I appreciate others are interested in them. From my perspective
what happened with the MS between 1870 and 1912 is about as interesting as Professor Brumbaugh's favourite brand of shoe polish, but there is no reason why other people should not be interested in this.