26-02-2026, 11:38 PM
Thank you, Stolfi, for your detailed and constructive feedback. You raise several valid points—the separation of the VMS sections, more careful filtering of labels, normalization of Hw for the sample size, and the question of p and f. All of these are improvements that make sense.
But I would like to point out that entropy analysis is really not my main area of expertise—I simply wanted to show that Bavarian is well suited as the basis for a possible absorption cipher to approximate Voynicheese.
So this was intended as a first rough comparison to see if the numbers were roughly correct, not as definitive statistical proof.
The fact that you describe the Hw result as a “match” is actually quite encouraging for my hypothesis.
As far as “unencrypted European natural language” is concerned
As I said, I'm not yet convinced by the Chinese theory, but if more evidence emerges, I may have to abandon my Bavarian theory with a smile and a tear in my eye. Until then, I'll continue a little further. Purely based on gut feeling, Bairish simply fits much better into the context of the VMS – but feeling is no proof.
But I would like to point out that entropy analysis is really not my main area of expertise—I simply wanted to show that Bavarian is well suited as the basis for a possible absorption cipher to approximate Voynicheese.
So this was intended as a first rough comparison to see if the numbers were roughly correct, not as definitive statistical proof.
The fact that you describe the Hw result as a “match” is actually quite encouraging for my hypothesis.
As far as “unencrypted European natural language” is concerned
As I said, I'm not yet convinced by the Chinese theory, but if more evidence emerges, I may have to abandon my Bavarian theory with a smile and a tear in my eye. Until then, I'll continue a little further. Purely based on gut feeling, Bairish simply fits much better into the context of the VMS – but feeling is no proof.
well, let’s get back to the Bavarian idea.