| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 857 online users.
» 4 Member(s) | 849 Guest(s)
Applebot, Baidu, Bing, Google, dashstofsk, Jonathang
|
| Latest Threads |
Atoms and elements of the...
Forum: Analysis of the text
Last Post: dashstofsk
21 minutes ago
» Replies: 6
» Views: 219
|
Who is even still working...
Forum: Theories & Solutions
Last Post: JoeyB
32 minutes ago
» Replies: 27
» Views: 2,655
|
Seasonal prefix clusterin...
Forum: Analysis of the text
Last Post: JoeyB
1 hour ago
» Replies: 7
» Views: 237
|
Voynich is encrypted ENOC...
Forum: Theories & Solutions
Last Post: Radim Dobeš
3 hours ago
» Replies: 169
» Views: 21,557
|
[split] Color annotations
Forum: Marginalia
Last Post: Jorge_Stolfi
4 hours ago
» Replies: 10
» Views: 4,943
|
The 'Chinese' Theory: Fo...
Forum: Theories & Solutions
Last Post: Mauro
4 hours ago
» Replies: 597
» Views: 148,644
|
TTR Analysis, Observed vs...
Forum: Analysis of the text
Last Post: bi3mw
4 hours ago
» Replies: 26
» Views: 1,583
|
15thc perception on swall...
Forum: Imagery
Last Post: Pierre Dumont Himself
4 hours ago
» Replies: 508
» Views: 293,985
|
Voynichese is a numeric c...
Forum: Theories & Solutions
Last Post: ololololo
Yesterday, 10:13 PM
» Replies: 30
» Views: 2,168
|
Rauwolf & Clusius & Gessn...
Forum: Provenance & history
Last Post: N._N.
Yesterday, 08:09 PM
» Replies: 4
» Views: 1,051
|
|
|
| About the scribes |
|
Posted by: ololololo - 06-06-2026, 12:37 AM - Forum: Theories & Solutions
- Replies (6)
|
 |
In this post, I will describe my assumptions about the supposed scribes of the manuscript. I have identified three of them: A (the author of Herbal A and part of the pharmaceuticals), B (the author of balneology and part of the recipes), and C (the author of Herbal B and the diagrams). I will not touch on the topic of languages A and B, I will only look at the features specific to these scribes and make some suggestions. Perhaps they will be useful...
Also, don't forget that I'm not making any claims here; this is just MY OPINION, and you may have a different one (and I would love to hear it  ) !
What can we say about scribe A? First of all, this person knows how to write beautifully. Of course, it can't be called calligraphy, but it's definitely noticeable that he writes evenly, even without lines, and his letters are uniform and clear. One of the best examples of this is the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. page
The first two volumes were written by him alone.The first folios (especially 1-3) were written by his hand. Starting from page. But folio 4 already contains traces of the scribe C's intervention (f26v and f31), and so on.
First, he could have been a professional scribe, as evidenced by his rather skillful writing style. This suggests that he is most likely the author of the notes on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and f116v. It is possible that he has written other books as well.
Second, he clearly understood what he was writing (in any case). This is evidenced by the confidence in his handwriting, as well as the fact that his "language" (Voynich A) differs from the language of other scribes. It is possible that the differences in language are a result of the fact that scribe A knew a little more about what he was writing. I also suggest comparing the lines written by scribe A and the lines written by scribe B:
Tsheoarom shar or chor olchsy chom otchom oporar (f3r)
qokchdy chcthy lo dsheckhy qokain chckhy lshedy okeedy (f75r)
Maybe this examples they are not entirely accurate and do not reflect the general pattern of language differences, but you may notice that while scribe A often repeats a single character, scribe B tends to copy an entire word with slight variations.
Thirdly, he may well be the author of the manuscript. Since he was a good writer and seemed to understand what he was writing, he could have been the creator of what we call voynichese (i.e., a code, a system of abbreviations, transcriptions, etc. I still respect the opinions of other users, so we'll avoid being too specific).
What can we say about the scribe C? His handwriting is minimalistic and "blurred":
However, the blurring does not always occur, and there are cases where the handwriting is similar to that of scribe C, but more distinct:
First, scribe C was most likely an assistant to scribe A. Since they first wrote a section together, it cannot be said that scribe A invited scribe C only to reduce his workload. However, it is worth noting that scribe C often writes more than scribe A, as exemplified by f34r.
This is not a result of his small handwriting, or at most only partially so (perhaps because of his small handwriting, he was able to fit more text on a page, and so was entrusted with such work).
Secondly, he was probably also aware of what he was writing. You see, while Herbal A and Herbal B have visible differences, if you compare Herbal B and balneology, you can also find quite a few differences between them. Since scribe C was likely "hired" before scribe B and worked on the same section as scribe A, he may have known a bit more about the cipher. This is also evidenced by the fact that he is entrusted with working with diagrams, and as we know, the vocabulary of astro- and cosmology cannot be unambiguously assigned to any particular language.
Thirdly, apparently, he was sometimes... very lazy (f65r looks like it wasn't finished).
What can you say about scribe B? And there's a lot to be said about him...
Let's start with the handwriting. In general, his handwriting is quite standard and does not have any distinctive features. The glyphs are even, and the letters are clearly visible. The overall appearance of the handwriting seems somewhat rushed, as if the person was writing quickly.
I assume that the first pages written by scribe B are You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and f58v. On voynich.nu, the text on these pages is described as "a transitional stage between A and B". However, this is not a fact, as the handwriting could also belong to scribe A.
One of the distinctive features of scribe B's handwriting is the lines - they are not always straight, and there is often very little space between them. Sometimes, the author even falls off the lines, as seen in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (perhaps he was simply tired).
First, scribe B writes exclusively in Voynich B, and his version is the most different from Voynich A (I don't think it needs to be explained that the botanical and balneological sections are different).
Second, the texts of scribe B are always larger than those of scribes A and C. It seems that he was almost always given larger texts. This suggests that he was likely a hired individual who was employed by scribe A to reduce his workload.
Thirdly, it may be that scribe B did not understand what he was writing at all, or that he was writing nonsense on purpose. The text he wrote is characterized by a lot of repetition, similar words (usually placed next to each other), and a generally low level of text variability (this is especially evident in f75r, but it is also reflected in other pages of balneology). Such a drastic difference may indicate that he most likely wrote it himself (it is unlikely that the author gave him something to copy, as he could have done it himself if he had the strength to give scribe B a sample), and most likely, if he wrote it meaningfully, it was not always accurate or meaningful. There is an example of a rather unusual word taken from the Rosettes and clearly written by the scribe B:
It is quite long, consists only of "vowel" characters, and has two consecutive double letters. For the entire manuscript, this word is too strange. Although this is an isolated example, it raises questions about the meaning of this word and whether scribe B may have "slacked off" on other pages.
This person also seemed to be very interested in drawing betonies, but he wasn't always successful...
Total, in my opinion:
Scribe A is a professional, most likely an author or at least an expert in Voynichese.
Scribe C worked with Scribe A and clearly understood Voynich.
Scribe B may have been a hack or just a klutz. In any case, the question arises as to whether the texts he wrote make sense.
|
|
|
| Templatic Voynich generator |
|
Posted by: Labyrinthinesecurity - 04-06-2026, 10:21 PM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- Replies (21)
|
 |
Dear all,
I have made a template driven voynich text generator which passes the statistic tests, including my own 4 signature tests which are quite demanding. Is it something that would be worth sharing, or template generators are already well described and known? I couldnt find much litterature except the groundbreaking work from Stolfi, but I dont know if he made an actual generator. Thanks for your inputs
|
|
|
|
| How much time and effort may have been put in? |
|
Posted by: eggyk - 04-06-2026, 03:57 PM - Forum: Voynich Talk
- Replies (10)
|
 |
Quite often, I see opinions here discussing various theories and judging them based on the amount of effort that would have been required from the VMS author for them to be true. I want to discuss that, even though it's almost definitely been discussed before.
How much effort do you think could have been put into the VMS text, illustrations and/or ciphers?
How much effort from the author does a theory require before you dismiss it as unlikely, and why?
How much effort would a potential decoding require before you dismiss the cipher as unlikely, and why?
I'll start: I think that any amount of effort/monotony, up to the scale of decades of work, sits within what's possible. There are countless examples of people doing extensive monotonous work for no specific reason beyond "why not?". Some people simply want to do something and do it, regardless of utility.
You have communities and individuals everywhere that do things on this scale. Some people go out and collect rocks from different places, some people spend years organising and digitising manuscripts knowing that almost noone will ever look, others build an extensive library of all of the worlds road bollards, electrical posts, and plant species for no reason other than knowing where they are on geoguessr. A group of players in minecraft are attempting to build the entire earth at a 1:1 scale!
Perhaps the most relevant example is the Voynich community itself. Many people set out to research and solve this manuscript, spending hours, days, weeks, months, sometimes years, and sometimes decades putting in 1000s of hours of effort in. Is it so unbelievable that someone may spend an entire year's worth of their free time writing a book meant to be unreadable, just for the sake of it? We tend to assume that if there is meaning in the text then there must have been a use case, but what if the author simply enjoyed writing weird/fancy books?
|
|
|
|
| Voynichese is a numeric cipher? |
|
Posted by: ololololo - 04-06-2026, 12:10 AM - Forum: Theories & Solutions
- Replies (30)
|
|
Well, when I wrote my last post, I didn't think about sharing my opinion on this... I think it would be better if I wrote it in a separate post.
During my independent study of the Voynich manuscript (which took about a year), I came to the conclusion that Voynich is most likely a cipher based on numbers. I am not a cryptology expert, but I will try to explain how I came to this conclusion.
Let's start with what I wrote about in the previous post, which is that the text of the Voynich manuscript (or rather, the mechanism of word formation) is very similar to classical substitution: all words consist of a fixed set of characters and bigrams arranged in a certain order. Here you might think that I am reinventing the wheel, having in mind the concepts of "prefix-midfix-suffix" or Stolfa's "crust-mantle-nucleus" model (in fact, this is what some initially thought), however, this is not quite the case. The set of supposed minimal substitution units that I have compiled demonstrates some more dependencies besides the dependencies of position in the word.
I would like to suggest that you look at this from a different angle. If we can easily decompose any word in the manuscript into such minimal units, but at the same time we clearly see that this is not a regular "symbol-symbol" substitution, then we can use regular numbers to help us.
First, I'll add a list of the "letters" I've generated:
1). Single letters: o, d, e*, y, r, l and maybe s,
2). Bigrams: oi, ai(an), or, ol, ar, al, om, am, in, iin, ee (es)*, ch/sh, ir, il, im, qo
3). All gallows and EVA x.
Pay attention to the digrams al-ar and ol-or. Their peculiarity is that in such a combination they repeatedly appear both in words and standing alone. But by swapping the letters (ol-or to lo-ro, al-ar to la-ra), these properties are immediately lost, and the structure of words becomes "more fragmented" (let's take the word for example oralar. It can be decomposed as ol-ar-ar, and as o-la-ra-R. I think you can immediately see the difference between three bigrams and two extra letters around the edges. In addition, there are no words "lara" or "rala" in the manuscript). This remarkable property of bigrams suggests that the letters of the Voynich manuscript are not Latin letters, but numbers.
But if they were Arabic numerals, swapping the digits in a number would result in a different number (for example, 41 becomes 14, 310 becomes 103, and 80 becomes 08), and the meaning would not be lost. However, in the case of digrams, the opposite effect is observed. This already suggests that Voynichese is a cipher based on Roman numerals, as they have the same property: if you take the number 41 = XLI and swap the IXL, you will not get a whole number, as it does not follow the rules of Roman numerals.
This "position effect" manifests itself both at the level of individual semantic units (as in the example with bigrams) and at the level of multiple words and the entire text (this manifests itself in the form of the "prefix-midfix-suffix" pattern). Given the historical context (specifically, the realities of the 15th century, the author's tools, and capabilities), I assume that the Voynich manuscript's cipher is a kind of nomenclature that is additionally encrypted using the letters of an artificially created alphabet (this is not entirely unusual, considering that it was a standard substitution technique for the time, similar to the Theban alphabet), which encrypts both letters and abbreviations.
Why letters and abbreviations?
I came to this conclusion because the list of "letters" I provided is quite flexible. For example, it is easy to see that ch and sh are equivalent (in the sense that words using these letters are almost identical to each other: chey - shey, cheody - sheody, char - shar, chdar - shdar, chckhy - shckhy).
It's not suitable for letters alone, or for abbreviations alone, but it's fine for both.
**
With bigrams, we can conduct a small experiment that shows features that are not typical for substitution. Let's exclude ee(es), ch/sh, and qo from the list. From the remaining list, we can select al-ar and ol-or. We can generate a pair of words by taking a pair like ol-*-in and replacing the asterisk with ai: olaiin, oraiin, and alair. These patterns are not typical for regular substitution, but they align well with the typical numerical cipher-nomenclator. Thus, we should read the words of the manuscript not as words, but as an ordered sequence of numbers, e.g. chey as 50-10-5 (this is not a translation, this just an example of how it might look).
It's inconvenient/impractical/difficult to do!
Maybe that's true, but it's possible, even for the 15th century, plus, given that the manuscript is a product of collective labor, the argument about its bulkiness loses weight, because a group of skilled people would definitely be able to encrypt the text faster than a single person.
It's inconvenient/impractical/difficult to read!
The manuscript is essentially not a work of fiction, but a reference book (all herbals are reference books), which means that the reader does not have to spend time deciphering the entire book. By knowing the key, they can apply it to the relevant pages without any problems.
Apparently, the book was not written for a wide audience (as evidenced by its design and lack of decryption), but for someone who at least knew the key. This suggests that there should have been no difficulties... if the book had fallen into the right hands .
...And super-highly interested fact...
Let's look at the top right corner of the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. page. In the context of the Roman numeral version, it takes on a new meaning...
Rotate the red symbols 90 degrees to the left, and you will get the Roman numeral 102. Such a bold coincidence, and on the first page... Could this be the key?
P.S. I am not an expert, and what I have written may be complete nonsense. The purpose of this post is not to prove that I am right, but rather to reach out to you, to find out your opinion, and to discuss this version together.
I hope this will help whoever deciphers the Voynich manuscript.
|
|
|
|
| A Hypothesis: The Voynich Manuscript as a Physician's Knowledge Database |
|
Posted by: Vaclav Hucek - 03-06-2026, 09:57 AM - Forum: The Slop Bucket
- Replies (3)
|
|
I am not proposing a translation. Instead, I would like to discuss a possible framework for interpreting the relationship between the illustrations and the text.
I've been studying the Voynich Manuscript and a possible interpretation came to mind.
What if the manuscript was created by a physician, herbalist, or early medical practitioner who was not writing continuous prose, but rather recording recipes, treatments, ingredients, quantities, and procedures in a structured system?
In the herbal section, the plants may not represent actual botanical species. Instead, they could represent ingredients used in remedies, medicines, ointments, or preparations intended to treat specific conditions. The unusual composite plants could therefore be visual summaries of the ingredients involved in a treatment rather than illustrations of real plants.
Under this hypothesis, the accompanying text would not necessarily be normal language. It could function more like a catalog or database entry, recording information such as: - the condition being treated,
- ingredients used,
- quantities or proportions,
- preparation methods,
- application instructions,
- expected effects.
One observation that led me to this idea is the frequent occurrence of similar word families throughout the manuscript. Rather than representing different words in a spoken language, they might represent categories, modifiers, quantities, or variations of the same ingredient or procedure.
The later sections of the manuscript may then describe processes rather than objects. The famous pages with women, pipes, and flowing liquids could represent bodily systems, medical conditions, treatments, or physiological processes. The diagrams may illustrate how a condition develops and how a remedy affects the body.
I also wonder whether the colors themselves carry information. For example, green could indicate a problematic condition, imbalance, or disease state, while blue could represent treatment, transformation, recovery, or a medicinal substance. This is only speculation, but the consistent use of color throughout different sections of the manuscript makes me curious whether it serves a functional purpose rather than being purely decorative.
In this interpretation, the manuscript would not be a conventional book meant to be read from beginning to end. Instead, it would be a structured medical reference system—a physician's private catalog of knowledge, treatments, classifications, and observations.
I am not claiming that this explains the manuscript, but I would be interested to know whether anyone has explored a similar hypothesis, especially regarding the relationship between the illustrations, recurring word families, and possible medical categorization.
|
|
|
|
| The Unsolved Mystery of Lorem Ipsum |
|
Posted by: Torsten - 02-06-2026, 04:24 PM - Forum: Voynich Talk
- Replies (1)
|
 |
I came across this youtube video about the history of the Lorem ipsum text — the world's famous placeholder text. Maybe others find this video also interesting.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
A few points that I think could be of interest:
Lorem ipsum has been used as placeholder text since 1966. For decades nobody knew what it was or where it came from.
"Lorem ipsum" was created by taking real Latin text from Cicero and modifying it — removing key words that carried meaning, adding non-Latin letters, garbling phrases. The modifications were small and selective. The result looks like Latin but is unreadable. It fooled everyone for decades until one scholar noticed a rare word and traced it back to its source.
|
|
|
|
| Voynichese's letters |
|
Posted by: ololololo - 01-06-2026, 06:25 PM - Forum: Theories & Solutions
- Replies (27)
|
|
During my independent research of the manuscript text, I may have been able to compile a list of letter combinations that form all of the words in the manuscript, and here it is:
1). Single letters: o, d, e*, y, r, l and maybe s,
2). Bigrams: oi, ai(an), or, ol, ar, al, om, am, in, iin, ee (es)*, ch/sh, ir, il, im, q
3). All gallows and EVA x (appears rarely and only in Voynich B).
*I can't be sure about e, because it can double like letter i, and I think the combination es is like in.
Although I doubt it, you can consider chy/shy and dy to be separate bigrams if you want. Ol, or, al, ar included in the list of bigrams because they are statistically inseparable (there are many separate ol and or, as well as parts of words: chol, poror, ykor and etc).
In fact, these combinations can be used to create any word in the manuscript, for example:
daiin = d+ai+in
chey = ch+e+y
chedy = ch+e+d+y
dy + d+y(unbelievable)
shapchedyfeey = sh+a+p+ch+e+d+y+f+ee+y (or sh+a+p+chedy+f+ee+y)
rchseesy = r + ch + s + ees + y
qokaiin = q + o + k + ai + in
otolaiin = o + t + ol + ai + in
doaro = d + o + ar + o
It looks bulky, but it seems to be true, as you can see, words are made up of not only individual letters, but also of bigrams.
If the encryption algorithm is based on substitution (which is likely to be the case, as there is nothing more appropriate for the 15th century than substitution), then the substitution alphabet contains between 26 and 28 letters (26 if we consider e, ee, and es to be equal and ignore x, which is only found in Voynich B). By the way, the Latin alphabet contains 26 letters.
In my opinion (just in case it's interesting), the letters of the mysterious alphabet are hidden behind numbers, and the numbers are hidden behind the Latin letters themselves. This can explain the presence of bigrams, which are not typical for regular substitution.
Although... at the same time, this is a convincing argument in favor of mystification, as this method can produce as many words as you like.
P.S. Sorry for my bad English, text made by translator.
|
|
|
|
| Mapping Voynich connections through rare tokens |
|
Posted by: quimqu - 01-06-2026, 12:55 PM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- Replies (34)
|
|
Most of my initial Voynich analysis focused on the most common tokens (I suppose it is the easiest way to start analysing the text). But this doesn't give us much information. So I started wondering if the opposite approach might actually be more informative.
Instead of looking at the global vocabulary, I analysed rare and semi-rare tokens. Not hapax legomena, since many of those could just be scribal noise or transliteration errors, but tokens appearing only a few times across the manuscript. My reasoning was simple: rarer tokens are potentially more specific, and therefore easier to trace between folios (and it might have less errors as they are repeated in the MS).
I built page-to-page networks based on shared rare tokens. The result was surprinsingly structured. Most pages remain weakly connected, but a few behave like hubs that link otherwise distant lexical communities.
The strongest case was f86v.
This is especially interesting because You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is a pure text folio. It has no obvious visual structure like zodiac diagrams or herbal labels. Yet it repeatedly emerges as one of the most connected pages in the manuscript when analysing rare-token overlap.
What caught my attention is that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. does not connect strongly to just one section. It shares selective vocabulary with multiple areas of the manuscript, especially Marginal stars, but also Biological, Herbal, Cosmological and others.
Another thing that stood out is the behaviour of the Marginal stars section itself. Several folios from this section repeatedly emerge as hubs or dense local connectors. This suggests that the section may contain a relatively coherent but highly reused layer of vocabulary, possibly acting as a bridge between otherwise more isolated parts of the manuscript.
Main rare-token hubs detected in the network:
| Folio |
Section |
Observed behaviour |
| f86v |
Text-only |
strongest transversal hub |
| fRos |
Cosmological |
cross-section connector |
| f111r |
Marginal stars |
dense lexical hub |
| f113r |
Marginal stars |
dense lexical hub |
| f115v |
Marginal stars |
highly connected |
| f108v |
Marginal stars |
bridge-like behavior |
| f72v |
Zodiac |
unexpectedly connected |
| f67r |
Astronomical |
distant lexical links |
| f89r |
Pharmaceutical |
cross-section overlap |
| f76v |
Biological |
emerges at relaxed thresholds |
The heatmap below shows one example. Each colored signal corresponds to links between You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and different manuscript sections using only semi-rare tokens. The x-axis follows token order inside the folio itself.
The important point is that the signals are sparse and selective. The page does look like a connector between different lexical neighborhoods (maybe references to text within the MS?).
The Rosettes foldout also behaves in a similarly unusual way. It does not dominate the network as strongly as f86v, but it repeatedly appears as a transversal connector between distant parts of the manuscript.
I am not claiming this proves that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is a summary page or an index. That would be too speculative. But I do think these results support a weaker idea: some folios seem to reuse selective vocabulary drawn from multiple textual communities across the manuscript.
Maybe the most common tokens tell us how the text is generated, while the less common ones tell us how the manuscript is organized. I also think the existence of hubs is difficult to explain with a fully random distribution of rare tokens. If these tokens were placed randomly across the manuscript, I would not expect them to accumulate repeatedly around specific folios acting as lexical connectors between otherwise distant pages.
I think this opens a new way of checking for relationships between folios and sections.
|
|
|
|
| Colorization - what was it's purpose? |
|
Posted by: Dunsel - 31-05-2026, 07:20 PM - Forum: Imagery
- Replies (29)
|
|
I'm taking a break from my computational attacks on the Voynich. I decided to look at the illustrations. Before I begin, I fully claim to be art ignorant.
But, here's my observation/question.
I got GPT to help with this bit. I took a page from the Voynich herbal section and a page from a 15th century herbal book, Erbario and asked it to remove the color from both images.
Now, I'll ask you to look at these two closely at how much information about the plant these images provide. If this were a "field guide" herbal, could you identify the plant from these line drawings?
Next, click on the spoiler link below and ask yourself, how much additional information regarding identification was provided by adding color?
My interpretation, and I can visually apply this to other Voynich illustrations: Adding color didn't provide me with a lot more information. Unlike Erbario where the colors would aid in identification, I think adding color to the Voynich plant may have made it more difficult to identify.
I know, this is nothing new. Just my musings.
|
|
|
|
| Hoax theory discovery by running lang analysis program according to my methodology |
|
Posted by: maskci - 31-05-2026, 04:20 PM - Forum: Theories & Solutions
- Replies (9)
|
|
The proposed methodology aims to discover the exact processes with which VMS might have been created if it is made for the sole purpose of impresisng people back then and possibly generating life changing income.
(I wont be able to run any programs for the below protocol so this is why Im posting this here)
As per You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
..apparently the deviation is significant eg. 2.5 for Voynichese compared to 3.5-4+ for Latin or Greek and other such metrics.
Assuming:
-> When copying and glyphizing they might want to further obfuscate, eg cutting out words, we standardize the scribes' behavior into potential patterns of 'organic transformation'
Methodology:
First data set - Take a body of texts they might have had access too, ideal assumption, texts plausibly available to a Central European scribe in the early 15th century, Latin herbals, Arabic medical texts, Hebrew manuscripts, and similar period-appropriate works.
Second set - broader - assuming we may not know precisely what materials the scribes had access to - casting a wider net across contemporaneous written traditions.
Run simulations against VMS and preferably whole and in parts by scribe author, as well as permutations, to find patterns of 'organic transformation' potentially done by the scribes that yield Voynichese 2.5 or other metrics from transforming the originals using various patterns.
Expected results:
We might find out an array of algorithms that are logical to a human scribe that produce the 2.5 distribution instead of 3.5 or 4+. Some of them look UNCANNILY PROBABLE EG skip first 3 lines and last 3 of a standard page over a 40 page window surprisingly yields this. Bonus points if we find out scribe 2 taught scribe 3 their tactic and 1 and 4 had their separate method, and they both yield 2.5 by copying the middle of the page in a circle.
Potential difficulties: 1. Too many probable patterns yield it. 2. Can't discern scribes (small difficulty)
Finalizing: potentially get a hoax hypothesis that is A to Z(pun intended) a functional hypothesis, describing the full process of the scribe crafting it for the gold grab, that actually makes sense because of their psychology when creating the VMS.
I hope for someone here to run it and let us know the results?
|
|
|
|
|