The Voynich Ninja

Quote:Once again, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. I explore the possibility that a largely auto-copied text might not necessarily be meaningless.

Yes, but I think Torsten did not explore it in that way; his point was about meaninglessness.

@Psillycyber:  Yes, of course !

I examined the distance of words some time ago. Not only the standard vord-distance. Also many combinations. Such as: removal of any of the letters, gallows are the vord-distance and not spaces, o is the vord distance etc. etc. However, none of those is a real distance compared with the existing languages, i concluded the existing spaces in the text are in fact real word spaces.  Publication of these huge lists consumes too much time and does not add value in my opinion.  

The distance of words and the distance of short-long-long etc (stats based on common 3 words-distances particular for a language) could be examined, but there are fancier techniques for that, based on word-vectors which is a subject in linguistic studies.  I know it is useless to try that because many universities use the vms-text as study material. (see my links in the docs-library section). If there was any discovery based on that, we would have heard about it a long time ago.

At first sight the copy or repeating sequences of TT are interesting because we all know there seems to be a repeating pattern in the ngrams and the vords. However if you examen this objectively, you can see that many text is repetitive: if you write a book about God and use He and The Holy One as reference, you can be sure that these words are in the TOP 10 always:  The God He Holy One.

If you would stick these words to other words, let's say:  then here thems gods goddess he's her hers holymoly holyness once ones onetime
You can be sure that you will be dazzled with the many "resembling" words. And that is what is going on in the VMS exactly.  Take any text and you will find the same things.  The big challenge lies (working on it now a couple of hours each week!)  in recognizing the conjugation, the language en the abbreviations/ligatures used.  

Among the researchers there seem to be three types:
a) the easy walker: he is looking at the text much too easy, as if the text can be deciphered easily and requires no textual knowledge, no historical research but could be read if he is in the mode, the right "trance" and if he has "some luck".
b) the hard persistent worker, that examines everything, read all, draws almost no conclusion, is able to change his opinion quickly, adapts new insights.
c) the beta-man that approaches the text as a mathematical problem that could be solved with the right formula, often high educated. 

I write all  this, because i think the approach we need does not depend on 1 theory and 1 method. The solution lies in a combination of natural language and a simple pattern + another simple pattern + another simple pattern.  So i think TT is good on the way, like many researchers, but he gave up too soon and made the decision that it was time to draw up the formula.

Dear Davidsch,

RE:
 "I write all  this, because i think the approach we need does not depend on 1 theory and 1 method. The solution lies in a combination of natural language and a simple pattern + another simple pattern + another simple pattern.  So i think TT is good on the way, like many researchers, but he gave up too soon and made the decision that it was time to draw up the formula."

I don't think it will take three patterns, only one, as I've demonstrated.

Or do you reject the results for the almost 2,400 words I've shown?

If you reject the pattern, or the results, could  you please tell me why?

If you accept the pattern, why do you think there have to be two or more patterns beyond that - is the pattern I show too simple to answer the need (whatever the need you see seems to be)?

If it is the results you reject, would you please say why?

I'm not dealing in proposed hypothetical patterns with the one I show - it's as real and solid as possible. And it does seem to give lucid, consistent and easily understandable results. And I even list them for everyone to see, understand and check. I don't want anyone to have to do any more work on understanding my ideas than necessary.

Are they not what you expected, hoped for, or interesting enough for you? Will the end results of the decoding process not be what you wanted, even if logical, consistent, understandable, repeatable and boring?

Is my proposed solution too simple, with only one pattern, for you accept?

What's up?

This is a direct challenge for you and others ignoring my ideas which seem to have some demonstrated proof behind them. Show me where my results aren't correct or where my proposed deconstruction ideas are wrong. Please don't just ignore proven results like they're not there.

But, in your arguments, please stick to reality like I try to do, not wishes, hopes, dreams, feelings, intuitions, will-o'-the-wisps or some computer program that doesn't quite give the answer you want or support what you are trying to say.

Do you think my proposed solution shows something that couldn't have been constructed in the time period (1404-1438)? Is there some part that seems to be based on later technology or writings? Could you explain, please?

I know I'm an argumentative old bastard with an evil reputation. But I'm not trying to be mean, nasty OR evil here. I'm just tired of being ignored by others seemingly too interested in their own ideas to try to see that anyone else's might be correct. Or unwilling to show me why these ideas of mine ARE incorrect.

There won't be two correct solutions. There will only be one. Please, anyone, show me why mine won't be it. It works. For almost every word and glyph, probably. Just like they appear in the VMS.

Isn't that good enough for you?

Thank you.

Don of Tallahassee

<As a moderator's sidenote: discussion of Don's solution would be most appropriate in the threads where Don describes it>.

(23-07-2016, 06:08 PM)Psillycyber Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So, for quite a while I've wondered why Torsten Timm's auto-copying hypothesis hasn't made a bigger splash in the Voynich community. 

Perhaps it would give the community more confidence in the auto-copying hypothesis if it could be statistically (not just subjectively) shown that the average edit distance between words in the VMS is anomalously low compared to other texts. 

<-removed->

Well, I was working on the edit distance already and made You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. where I try to show why the Edit Distance does not tell you anything. Perhaps it helps you towards what you are looking for.

(23-07-2016, 10:05 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Quote:On the other hand, the number of enciphering mechanisms is inherently limited

I don't see why it is inherently  limited. Enciphering is producing output by applying certain operators, rules or procedures to the input. Since a procedure can be a combination of procedures and, next, one can imagine infinity of combinations, therefore the number of enciphering mechanisms is inherently unlimited. It is much the same as the number of mathematical functions is unlimited.

Here I agree with Anton. There could be a number of procedures and combinations of procedures. Because the author knew how the cipher worked beforehand, the procedures were easy to recognize. But since we do not know them, there are literally a million combinations to try.

Here is just a small portion of all the different things that could be going on:

• Are some characters always equivalent?
  (ex. Does [o] = [a]?)
  
  
• Are some characters equivalent only in certain combinations?
  (ex. [oiin] = [aiin] but [or] =/= [ar])
  
  
• Are some characters always nulls?
  
  
• Are some characters nulls only in certain positions?
  (ex. [y] is meaningful but not at end of words)
  
  
• Are some characters nulls in certain combinations?
  (ex. [o] in [or] is meaningful but [o] in [oaiin] is not)
  
  
• Are there "null positions" inside words?
  (ex. every third letter is meaningless)
  
  
• Are there "null positions" inside lines?
   (ex. every third word in a line is meaningless?)
  
  
• Are some characters doubled/tripled for no reason?
  (ex. aiiin, okeeey)
  
  
• Are some words repeated for no reason?
  (ex. qokeedy qokeedy qokeedy)
  
  
• Can a sign stand for more than one sound / a group of sounds?
  (ex. [y] = Latin -us, -is, -os)
  
  
• Can a sign stand for more than one sound / group of sounds  in different positions?
  (ex. [y] at word beginning = con/com, [y] at word end = us/is/os)
  
  
• Do spaces have meaning? All the time? Sometimes? None of the time?
  
  
• Are vowels written or not written?
  
  
• Is non-phonetic information (ex. numbers) also encrypted?
  

It seems to me that the edit distance is only a useful measure if you assume that the words are laid down on the folio in the order in which they originally occurred in the language/plaintext. If the words have been rearranged on the page (a theory that seems to fit the properties) then the edit distance between adjacent words is probably not informative.

(23-07-2016, 08:08 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Quote:So, for quite a while I've wondered why Torsten Timm's auto-copying hypothesis hasn't made a bigger splash in the Voynich community.

I think that is mainly because Torsten's hypothesis implies that the whole stuff is meaningless, while there are many tiny obstacles to the meaninglessness of the text. To name my favourite one:

otol and odaiin are the two most frequent "Voynich stars" (labeled objects in f68r1 and f68r2), and they are both mentioned in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (supposed to serve for some introduction or summary).

Quote:That the VMS is not encrypted is basically proven by the low second-order entropy of the text, since virtually all ciphers increase entropy.  The main exception, verbose ciphering, is ruled out by the lack of repeated strings (no long words and no repeated sequences of short words).

Is the fact that all ciphers increase entropy mathematically proven? I think it is not. So there are no foundations to state that. One may state that "all ciphers known to this person increase entropy", but that would not disprove the hypothesis that VMS is enciphered since it well may be enciphered by a cipher unknown (indeed, if it were enciphered with a known cipher, it would have probably been deciphered long ago).

So it is by no means "proven" that VMS is not a cipher.

For the verbose ciphering, is it ruled out? What if it is supplemented by shuffling?

---

(07-10-2016, 08:37 PM)sidanno Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(23-07-2016, 08:08 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Quote:So, for quite a while I've wondered why Torsten Timm's auto-copying hypothesis hasn't made a bigger splash in the Voynich community.

I think that is mainly because Torsten's hypothesis implies that the whole stuff is meaningless, while there are many tiny obstacles to the meaninglessness of the text. To name my favourite one:

otol and odaiin are the two most frequent "Voynich stars" (labeled objects in f68r1 and f68r2), and they are both mentioned in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (supposed to serve for some introduction or summary).

Quote:That the VMS is not encrypted is basically proven by the low second-order entropy of the text, since virtually all ciphers increase entropy.  The main exception, verbose ciphering, is ruled out by the lack of repeated strings (no long words and no repeated sequences of short words).

Is the fact that all ciphers increase entropy mathematically proven? I think it is not. So there are no foundations to state that. One may state that "all ciphers known to this person increase entropy", but that would not disprove the hypothesis that VMS is enciphered since it well may be enciphered by a cipher unknown (indeed, if it were enciphered with a known cipher, it would have probably been deciphered long ago).

So it is by no means "proven" that VMS is not a cipher.

For the verbose ciphering, is it ruled out? What if it is supplemented by shuffling?

---

(07-10-2016, 08:37 PM)sidanno Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(23-07-2016, 08:08 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Quote:So, for quite a while I've wondered why Torsten Timm's auto-copying hypothesis hasn't made a bigger splash in the Voynich community.

I think that is mainly because Torsten's hypothesis implies that the whole stuff is meaningless, while there are many tiny obstacles to the meaninglessness of the text. To name my favourite one:

otol and odaiin are the two most frequent "Voynich stars" (labeled objects in f68r1 and f68r2), and they are both mentioned in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (supposed to serve for some introduction or summary).

Quote:That the VMS is not encrypted is basically proven by the low second-order entropy of the text, since virtually all ciphers increase entropy.  The main exception, verbose ciphering, is ruled out by the lack of repeated strings (no long words and no repeated sequences of short words).

Is the fact that all ciphers increase entropy mathematically proven? I think it is not. So there are no foundations to state that. One may state that "all ciphers known to this person increase entropy", but that would not disprove the hypothesis that VMS is enciphered since it well may be enciphered by a cipher unknown (indeed, if it were enciphered with a known cipher, it would have probably been deciphered long ago).

So it is by no means "proven" that VMS is not a cipher.

For the verbose ciphering, is it ruled out? What if it is supplemented by shuffling?

---

(07-10-2016, 08:37 PM)sidanno Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(23-07-2016, 08:08 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Quote:So, for quite a while I've wondered why Torsten Timm's auto-copying hypothesis hasn't made a bigger splash in the Voynich community.

I think that is mainly because Torsten's hypothesis implies that the whole stuff is meaningless, while there are many tiny obstacles to the meaninglessness of the text. To name my favourite one:

otol and odaiin are the two most frequent "Voynich stars" (labeled objects in f68r1 and f68r2), and they are both mentioned in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (supposed to serve for some introduction or summary).

Quote:That the VMS is not encrypted is basically proven by the low second-order entropy of the text, since virtually all ciphers increase entropy.  The main exception, verbose ciphering, is ruled out by the lack of repeated strings (no long words and no repeated sequences of short words).

Is the fact that all ciphers increase entropy mathematically proven? I think it is not. So there are no foundations to state that. One may state that "all ciphers known to this person increase entropy", but that would not disprove the hypothesis that VMS is enciphered since it well may be enciphered by a cipher unknown (indeed, if it were enciphered with a known cipher, it would have probably been deciphered long ago).

So it is by no means "proven" that VMS is not a cipher.

For the verbose ciphering, is it ruled out? What if it is supplemented by shuffling?

---

(07-10-2016, 08:37 PM)sidanno Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(23-07-2016, 08:08 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Quote:So, for quite a while I've wondered why Torsten Timm's auto-copying hypothesis hasn't made a bigger splash in the Voynich community.

I think that is mainly because Torsten's hypothesis implies that the whole stuff is meaningless, while there are many tiny obstacles to the meaninglessness of the text. To name my favourite one:

otol and odaiin are the two most frequent "Voynich stars" (labeled objects in f68r1 and f68r2), and they are both mentioned in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (supposed to serve for some introduction or summary).

Quote:That the VMS is not encrypted is basically proven by the low second-order entropy of the text, since virtually all ciphers increase entropy.  The main exception, verbose ciphering, is ruled out by the lack of repeated strings (no long words and no repeated sequences of short words).

Is the fact that all ciphers increase entropy mathematically proven? I think it is not. So there are no foundations to state that. One may state that "all ciphers known to this person increase entropy", but that would not disprove the hypothesis that VMS is enciphered since it well may be enciphered by a cipher unknown (indeed, if it were enciphered with a known cipher, it would have probably been deciphered long ago).

So it is by no means "proven" that VMS is not a cipher.

For the verbose ciphering, is it ruled out? What if it is supplemented by shuffling?

---

(07-10-2016, 08:37 PM)sidanno Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(23-07-2016, 08:08 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Quote:So, for quite a while I've wondered why Torsten Timm's auto-copying hypothesis hasn't made a bigger splash in the Voynich community.

I think that is mainly because Torsten's hypothesis implies that the whole stuff is meaningless, while there are many tiny obstacles to the meaninglessness of the text. To name my favourite one:

otol and odaiin are the two most frequent "Voynich stars" (labeled objects in f68r1 and f68r2), and they are both mentioned in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (supposed to serve for some introduction or summary).

Quote:That the VMS is not encrypted is basically proven by the low second-order entropy of the text, since virtually all ciphers increase entropy.  The main exception, verbose ciphering, is ruled out by the lack of repeated strings (no long words and no repeated sequences of short words).

Is the fact that all ciphers increase entropy mathematically proven? I think it is not. So there are no foundations to state that. One may state that "all ciphers known to this person increase entropy", but that would not disprove the hypothesis that VMS is enciphered since it well may be enciphered by a cipher unknown (indeed, if it were enciphered with a known cipher, it would have probably been deciphered long ago).

So it is by no means "proven" that VMS is not a cipher.

For the verbose ciphering, is it ruled out? What if it is supplemented by shuffling?

In my opinion that two words are :
otol and odaiin
odaiin = ATOMO Latin - atomus a particle incapable of being divided
otol = APLAS (pathology) aplasia (incomplete development, or absence, of an organ or tissue)
Probably the stars are in conections with state of uman body and medicaments from plants

If you change in text this leters you will obtain a vulgar latin language with conotation in latin, catalan, venetian, spaniol, portugehse
o is a
t is pl
l is s
d is t
a is o
iin is mo

look in my last post or in this image

Can we please stay on-topic with Psillycyber's original interesting topic and not introduce translation attempts that are not relevant to the discussion.

(08-10-2016, 08:06 AM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Can we please stay on-topic with Psillycyber's original interesting topic and not introduce translation attempts that are not relevant to the discussion.

Posts like that last one of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. already buried a little one line posting to the extend that this thread has become totally unreadable.

Is there anything technical you can do to prevent [quote[quote[quote[quote[nonsense]]]] that would be nice. Or limit the size of postings.