The Voynich Ninja

Interesting work Stellar - I don't have a free moment right now but I'll post later tonight!

(05-11-2016, 06:12 PM)ThomasCoon Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Interesting work Stellar - I don't have a free moment right now but I'll post later tonight!

For a bigger look here it is:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

So just a backup for my proof I checked You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. which had 291 vords and the glyph's to the left margin added up to 291.  I even added two more glyph's to my numbers chart here is the update.

I counted the vords in each chunk and they do not match the number of vords you have listed on the right.

(05-11-2016, 10:26 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I counted the vords in each chunk and they do not match the number of vords you have listed on the right.

JKP,

How much are you off by and which folio are you referring too.  Science uses a a 95% confidence and my count would be within that range.

Dearest and most dear stellar,
What a most wonderful work. I am just curious how you come up with "37" for the third column on the large page, since I can't come up with more than 33.

Thanks Stellar. It is very neat and interesting work. It's amazing that your system got exactly the same amount or very near to it. My only question on the first post is vord #71. I might call word #71 two different words: dcho - dchol, since the space between the two parts appears greater than the space between 126 & 127, or 102 & 103. This is verifiable using paint or another program: the red bar in the below picture is the space between the o and d in 71:



I am always appreciative of your work and I know you'll take this as constructive advice, not as derision! You always have interesting ideas, and I hope to help / test them

(06-11-2016, 02:21 AM)ThomasCoon Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Thanks Stellar. It is very neat and interesting work. It's amazing that your system got exactly the same amount or very near to it. My only question on the first post is vord #71. I might call word #71 two different words: dcho - dchol, since the space between the two parts appears greater than the space between 126 & 127, or 102 & 103. This is verifiable using paint or another program: the red bar in the below picture is the space between the o and d in 71:



I am always appreciative of your work and I know you'll take this as constructive advice, not as derision! You always have interesting ideas, and I hope to help / test them

Thanks Thomas,

I used an online tool to run a sample of scientific confidence and it checked out great:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(06-11-2016, 01:37 AM)Witch Mountain Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Dearest and most dear stellar,
What a most wonderful work. I am just curious how you come up with "37" for the third column on the large page, since I can't come up with more than 33.

Dear Witch Mountain,
Can you post the number you counted.

If you are saying you counted 34 and correct me if I'm wrong.  I'm still in a confidence range.

(05-11-2016, 10:41 PM)stellar Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(05-11-2016, 10:26 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I counted the vords in each chunk and they do not match the number of vords you have listed on the right.

JKP,

How much are you off by and which folio are you referring too.  Science uses a a 95% confidence and my count would be within that range.

Stellar, science says that if there are 50 words, then there are 50 words. You don't use 95% confidence level to excuse sloppiness. Confidence levels are used for counting things for which there is not an exact count. A short paragraph of less than 100 words with pretty clear spaces, in this instance, has an exact count. Too many of yours are off to excuse them.

I always have the impression you rush headlong through things without checking them. And then you excuse your own haste by bringing up confidence levels where they don't apply, instead of re-checking your counts.

Do yourself a favor. Set a higher standard. You will receive much more attention and consideration for your ideas if you double-check them. We all have limited time and I'm near the end of my patience. If my patience runs out I won't bother reading your posts any more. For the record, I am more patient (much more patient) than most people I know.