(14-04-2025, 09:54 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Andrew: I do believe that certain aspects of the MS make this kind of behavior more likely. Perhaps most important that the glyphs are easy to tell apart and they look like a regular European script. Words look like words. You don't have to think too much before you can get your theory going. Compare that to Linear A or the Rohonc Codex for contrast.
Making a Voynich theory that feels plausible to the solver is just...easy. That's the trap.
That's fair enough. I guess I'm a little less forgiving of these proposed solutions (and their proposers) BECAUSE it is so easy to come up with illusory solutions of the quality we see -- and when they are all so easily debunked. And as I mentioned, any well-known unsolved cipher seems to attract a lot of those delusional claims --and in direct proportion to the puzzle's notoriety.
I don't really fault Kris1212 for being concerned about protecting the hopeful solution, but the fact that he (she?) doesn't realize that the protection he seeks comes from revealing his solution as quickly and publicly as possible, and not from hiding, speaks to the likelihood that he is not seeing the situation objectively and has fallen to the same delusion.
(I think, when he implied that you approved the solution, I said the same thing to myself that many on this forum probably did; "Well Koen will no doubt be posting a correction to that statement very shortly so I'lll just go a get a coffee while I wait for it".
)
(14-04-2025, 09:44 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (14-04-2025, 09:11 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....how really the odds are massively against any solution being correct, because there is is this trap in the Voynich that causes people to believe they have solved it when they haven't.
Well said tavie, but I'd have to disagree with that part of your response. I mean did you have a particular Voynich-specific "trap" in mind? I think the phenomenon you are referring to is in the type of person who gets convinced that their solution is correct and not in the puzzle itself . That seems to be the case with any celebrated unsolved cipher or mystery. (It was certainly so with the Zodiac Z340; One well known and orherwise competent researcher was absolutely convinced he had solved it when it was embrassingly obvious he had not.) Most sensible people realize that when such a problem is correctly solved, the correctness of the solution is blatantly obvious and compelling -- problems where the solver has to actually convince the world that they are correct are pretty rare. But there are always some people who cannot avoid the self-delusion that their solution is somehow special despite it being obvious to everyone else that it's not.
No - we had another post about this somewhere - I think something with Mark. It's just a convenient phrase. I don't think at all that Solveritis is unique to the Voynich. As you said, it was seen for the Zodiac 340 and there are people out there who still insist their solution was correct, despite it being inferior in all the key metrics to the actual solution. And it was seen with Linear B last century, and with Linear A now. And also I believe with Fermat's Last Theorem, including people who had little mathematical training. And the Dorabella cypher, etc.
As Koen says, I do think the Solveritis phenomenon is more prevalent for the Voynich, at least for the moment, because the manuscript is more accessible.
(14-04-2025, 11:10 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (14-04-2025, 09:54 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Andrew: I do believe that certain aspects of the MS make this kind of behavior more likely. Perhaps most important that the glyphs are easy to tell apart and they look like a regular European script. Words look like words. You don't have to think too much before you can get your theory going. Compare that to Linear A or the Rohonc Codex for contrast.
Making a Voynich theory that feels plausible to the solver is just...easy. That's the trap.
That's fair enough. I guess I'm a little less forgiving of these proposed solutions (and their proposers) BECAUSE it is so easy to come up with illusory solutions of the quality we see -- and when they are all so easily debunked. And as I mentioned, any well-known unsolved cipher seems to attract a lot of those delusional claims --and in direct proportion to the puzzle's notoriety.
I don't really fault Kris1212 for being concerned about protecting the hopeful solution, but the fact that he (she?) doesn't realize that the protection he seeks comes from revealing his solution as quickly and publicly as possible, and not from hiding, speaks to the likelihood that he is not seeing the situation objectively and has fallen to the same delusion.
(I think, when he implied that you approved the solution, I said the same thing to myself that many on this forum probably did; "Well Koen will be no doubt be posting a correction to that statement very shortly so I'lll just go a get a coffee while I wait for it". )
So i'm not hiding my decode at all, just not revealing it to the world yet, give me a few days and you can all see it, I'll put it online, I'll share the pdf here and you can all have a good old look, Koen actually said some good things about it too and the bad things he said I feel he didn't properly understand and when I put it online it will cover all his critiques, don't worry, I've made absolutely sure I've covered his negatives. I'm sure everyone is sure of their theory and at the moment right now I don't see any holes in mine, I'm not a numpty I was a professional troubleshooter for many years, amongst other things, I also work more than full time hours, I have a full time self funded animal rescue and just me and my husband, 17 dogs, 2 pigs, chickens, ducks, I also live off the grid so power can be an issue at times, I'm going as fast as I can and the only reason I'm protecting my decode so fiercely is because if I am right it could change our lives here, we can get some fencing and rescue more dogs....not much to ask is it, so give me a break, be patient and then you can rip me to shreds and sit back and laugh your little socks off...and I honestly won't care because I gave it a bloody good go and I didn't listen to the naysayers, I'm not nasty or a bitch but I give as good as I get :-)
(14-04-2025, 11:11 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (14-04-2025, 09:44 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[quote="tavie" pid='65737' dateline='1744661478']
...how really the odds are massively against any solution being correct, because there is is this trap in the Voynich that causes people to believe they have solved it when they haven't.
As Koen says, I do think the Solveritis phenomenon is more prevalent for the Voynich, at least for the moment, because the manuscript is more accessible.
True, the increase in accessibility (since the digital images became available via the Internet) is a big factor. But I still think the Voynich, if anything, would present LESS of a trap because of its size. (Or should be less if the "trap" resides in the puzzle as opposed to being in the Solveritis suffererer's mindset).
With unsolved problems of this kind (i.e.. effectively a cryptogram), I look at it like this: To find an apparent solution with something like Z340, you must have an idea that works CONSISTENTLY across 340 characters. But to do that with the Voynich, you must have an idea that works consistently across ~190,000 characters (or so).
So the reason we have so many delusional solutions is because the requirement of "consistency" is simply thrown out the window (which is something done by the solver -- not as a property of the puzzle.)
(14-04-2025, 11:24 PM)Kris1212 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[...and I honestly won't care because I gave it a bloody good go and I didn't listen to the naysayers, I'm not nasty or a bitch but I give as good as I get :-)
And I commend you for that -- I really do! I don't think you should simply accept without question the criticism of your solution that you might see on this forum. There are plenty who don't really approach the problem objectively. (But you should be aware that most everyone will vouch that Koen is NOT one of those people, so you should give a lot more consideration to his observations than you seem to be doing.)
I have not seen your solution, so I have no criticisms of it at all and I don't want it to seem like I do. Correct solutions to problems often come from outsiders of one kind or another -- and often because of their distance from the established community (e.g. Einstein as a patent office clerk, Wright brothers from outside academia) No -- my skepticism is related to the other red-flags that I see with your postings and that they make it more probable that you have fooled yourself.
(14-04-2025, 11:43 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (14-04-2025, 11:24 PM)Kris1212 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[...and I honestly won't care because I gave it a bloody good go and I didn't listen to the naysayers, I'm not nasty or a bitch but I give as good as I get :-)
And I commend you for that -- I really do! I don't think you should simply accept without question the criticism of your solution that you might see on this forum. There are plenty who don't really approach the problem objectively. (But you should be aware that most everyone will vouch that Koen is NOT one of those people, so you should give a lot more consideration to his observations than you seem to be doing.)
I have not seen your solution, so I have no criticisms of it at all and I don't want it to seem like I do. Solutions to problems like this often come from outsiders of one kind or another -- and often because of their distance from the established community. No -- my skepticism is related to the other red-flags that I see with your postings and that they make it more probable that you have fooled yourself.
I'm not sure why you think I haven't listened to his criticism, I have and I disagree. What more can I say, if I'm wrong, I have no issue with that, none whatsoever but I won't just be told to let something be and to go back to my corner when I don't think the other person is correct. He offered to look at it for me, he did, I thanked him, I was polite, he clearly isn't happy that I want to continue on my decode path, why I'm not sure, makes no odds to him if I make myself look a fool, to none of you actually so what's the issue, not hurting any of you, just having a go and will see it through.
I wasn't planning to post a detailed breakdown of the issues, but you forced my hand when you implied that I approved of your theory.
Anyway, this discussion would be a lot easier if your theory could actually be discussed. I also haven't seen you address my criticism, especially the one about EVA.
(14-04-2025, 11:52 PM)Kris1212 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm not sure why you think I haven't listened to his criticism, I have and I disagree. What more can I say, if I'm wrong, I have no issue with that, none whatsoever but I won't just be told to let something be and to go back to my corner when I don't think the other person is correct. He offered to look at it for me, he did, I thanked him, I was polite, he clearly isn't happy that I want to continue on my decode path, why I'm not sure, makes no odds to him if I make myself look a fool, to none of you actually so what's the issue, not hurting any of you, just having a go and will see it through.
That's all fair enough, for sure. (I can't speak for Koen, but I can tell you that I took a little bit of offense when you implied that he had approved your solution simply because I knew that that was surely a misleading statement.)
I do understand your concern about protecting your solution (although I think you are going about it wrong). And for what it is worth, I'd be happy to look at your solution too, and give you an honest, private assessment. I just won't do it under an NDA because, having worked with IP NDA's for decades, I know it would take fair bit of time and effort to prepare one that would adequately protect both of us. You can DM me if you want to discuss that further though.
Wouldn't it make more sense for us all to wait to discuss this for a few days until the promised information has been published? The more we debate it now, the more time Kris1212 will have to spend on replying to our messages instead of working up a publication (and caring for rescued dogs: kudos for that). Let's give Kris1212 some breathing room. We'll know the details soon enough.
(15-04-2025, 12:07 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I wasn't planning to post a detailed breakdown of the issues, but you forced my hand when you implied that I approved of your theory.
Anyway, this discussion would be a lot easier if your theory could actually be discussed. I also haven't seen you address my criticism, especially the one about EVA.
I'll happily send you an email with my responses to your issues with the text. It's difficult to discuss it here, you didn't reply to my last email so I presumed you were no longer interested in any discussion about it.