(09-07-2025, 08:13 AM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There is one universally accepted record - and it's 0%. It was first achieved by Newbold in the 1920s and to this day I don't think it has been beaten.
I guess you meant 100%
Here is the wikipedia article on Newbold: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
(09-07-2025, 10:21 AM)Mauro Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I guess you meant 100%
Here is the wikipedia article on Newbold: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Ok, I stand corrected it was 100% at the time of the record. But due to inflation around the time of the Great Depression, the record was ultimately revised to a more reasonable figure of 0%.
As far as I know, Newbold only translated a few pages, or perhaps even just parts of a few pages.
More 'promising' (in a way) are the E-mails I am now receiving each week.
These are about complete translations. Not just 75%.
On a more philosphical note, I wonder if 75% of invalid translation is better than 45% of invalid translation, or, indeed, worse....
(08-07-2025, 07:48 PM)Michael Obraztsov Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Many of your rival Solvers have found hundreds or thousands of words in their chosen language" - here is an important question: have they translated hundreds and thousands of words, translating many sentences in a row, translating from random samples, or limiting themselves to convenient words and phrases in different places of the text? And also, what percentage of such words completely match words from dictionaries, and what percentage only partially, with the root and the like?
2. Is there a record on the website of how many words of the Voynich manuscript were recognized by the program based on the alphabet proposed by one person or another? If it is not being conducted, then why? That's a big omission.
3. Suppose my interpretation is trivial, and with three languages, 75% of the recognized text can be obtained with many alphabet variants. But has there been any research on this topic? Would you recommend someone who knows how to use special programs well, who would use such programs to calculate the number of recognizable words of the Voynich manuscript based on my alphabet? I would also like to learn from such people about experiments with more than one language and the percentage of recognized words for each case. Are there such people here and the practice of calculating the percentage of recognized words using programs?
Neither of you mentions inflection. With highly inflected language, one root can generate ten, twenty words that differ for one or two letters and are considered by the Voynich researchers as unique words, while they all belong to the same word family. Therefore, in a languagege where different suffixes are used for six cases, three numbers and three genders, just a declination of a masculine noun can generate 18 different suffixes. Add to this a verb from that same word family and conjugate it for 3 numbers, three genders, 3 persons, and you get another nine similar words. Different one or two-letter prefixes would further increase the number of similar words. This is how 1000 different words could be recognized from just 50 or hundred recognizable words.
Hello Michael!
I just visited the Telegram chat for Chinese language enthusiasts you mentioned; it was very informative.
I now better understand the reasons for the vindictive tone of your messages here: you brought it from Telegram.
I also understand that whatever advice we could give you here would be wasted, because the same advice has already been given to you by members of the chat, and it was of no use.
(09-07-2025, 01:19 PM)Ruby Novacna Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I just visited the Telegram chat for Chinese language enthusiasts you mentioned; it was very informative.
Is there any connection between Chinese language enthusiasts and the Voynich Manuscript?
(09-07-2025, 01:36 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Is there any connection between Chinese language enthusiasts and the Voynich Manuscript?
In both fields, you're doomed to keep struggling with glyphs?
(09-07-2025, 01:36 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Is there any connection between Chinese language enthusiasts and the Voynich Manuscript?
Chat members asked this question several times before advising him to post on voynich.ninja.
(09-07-2025, 08:13 AM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (09-07-2025, 07:49 AM)Michael Obraztsov Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Why do you think my decision is clearly wrong?
The details you describe can only be clarified by translating a lot of pages, and this takes time. I wish that until I had time to translate a lot, my work was appreciated for the high percentage of text recognition, if such a percentage is a record.
If you are not ready to put more effort into understanding the critiques or providing a stronger argument, it's strange to expect other people to appreciate your work.
I said what's wrong with your approach in my very first post on this topic. Anyone can achieve 100% of "text recognition" using the same method. It's trivial and I think it's a waste of time.
(09-07-2025, 08:05 AM)Michael Obraztsov Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So what about other people's records regarding the percentage of recognized text? You don't know?
There is one universally accepted record - and it's 0%. It was first achieved by Newbold in the 1920s and to this day I don't think it has been beaten.
If it's trivial - prove it's trivial. Translate the same text that I translated, for example, into the same three languages, with no less recognition percentage than I did. Use a different alphabet. I'll see how you do. Or, do the same for any three other languages with your alphabet.
It is very easy to throw unfounded accusations, but I recommend that you try to put this into practice. I put it into practice. If it's easy, put it into practice. By this you will prove your case to me and many others so that in the future they do not waste time trying to make a translation from three languages. This is a matter of principle. As long as you assert without evidence, your arguments will remain only unfounded accusations.
As for my "unwillingness to make more efforts," what makes you think that I am not ready to make these efforts? I wrote not about this, but about recognizing what I had already achieved: recognizing the maximum percentage of words based on my alphabet. You don't have scientific thinking at all if you don't see a correlation between an increase in the percentage of recognized words and an increase in the likelihood that the correct algorithm has been selected. There is a direct probabilistic relationship. Do you understand what factor analysis is and the probability of correct decisions depending on the percentage of identical results of solving the problem? I repeat: if, as you say, to achieve my results on the basis of three languages is a banal thing, then achieve such results. Not just for me, but for everyone else. It won't take you years, and even months, if you're right. I managed in a matter of days.
(09-07-2025, 09:49 AM)Eiríkur Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (07-07-2025, 08:00 PM)Michael Obraztsov Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As far as I know, Cheshire showed the best result before me with 44 percent. Am I wrong?
My concern would be with your definition of "best." It's not a competition. Chesire is just another solver like yourself.
He didn't study the existing research. Doesn't know the state of knowledge, which, outside of clickbait for the unwary, is astonishingly good. Chesire was an aspiring academic who encountered the Voynich but did not join the team. I don't understand why a person would not bootstrap their work by reading about what has worked and what hasn't Just the ideas I've encountered in the papers and blog. I date back to the Sapir-Whorf era of linguistics (I'm not a linguist) where it was frequently said that you can't think about something if you don't have the vocabulary.
You can't swing a cat around here with knocking over a few polymathic geniuses. People you'll meet here have been working for decades forming and discarding hypotheses, as one must. That's why you not knowing where we are today is frustrating. It's almost impossible to have a conversation with you. I'm not claiming any credit. My attendance has been spotty. Every single time I've had 'an original thought' recently, I've eventually found some research that covers it. Maybe behind an academic paywall. That usually takes too long and I've already written my own program :-(
You'd be more humble and less frustrated if you had read the giants in our field. I started out humble and I keep getting bushwacked by the manuscript. It's merciless. It's not what it looks like. Just looking at a single line of Voynichese text, carefully, perhaps comparing it to running text in your choice of language, there are tells that tell you that something isn't right. This stuff isn't a secret. If it were, I wouldn't tell you that you're not working on the real problem. You're spending your time on a surface level, going with your gut, that doesn't explain things that are very visible on the page. Mary D'Imperio's book is a free download from the NSA. She and Currier and Tiltman would have rolled their eyes at you in the 1970s. Voyniocheros see this as a team effort because we've seen the magnitude of the problem, and kept educating ourselves and each other. I'd like to see some further progress in my lifetime, but Voynich is a priceless education, and the company is great.
«You're spending your time on a surface level, going with your gut, that doesn't explain things that are very visible on the page».
Could you give specific examples of things "that my intuition does not explain, and that are clearly visible on the page"? Then I will explain these things.