| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 636 online users.
» 10 Member(s) | 621 Guest(s)
Applebot, Baidu, Bing, Google, Yandex, Grove, JoJo_Jost, Karlov, R. Sale
|
|
|
Test your AI theory with this prompt |
|
Posted by: Magical Raven - 10-10-2025, 04:31 AM - Forum: The Slop Bucket
- No Replies
|
 |
Hello, I want to share with you a prompt that I used to dismiss the theory of a very dear friend, who probably used some AI to create his own theory that "deciphers" the Voynich manuscript.I want them to be self-critical of their work and use it, or some variant of equal or greater effectiveness.
My intention is to ensure that no one goes around in circles in their own logic and can focus on more productive work to properly resolve the manuscript. This prompt is perhaps quite specific so I also hope you will adapt it to your own decryption/translation system or model.
Code: Evaluation Tasks (Perform these tests in order):
1. Internal Consistency Test (Is the system circular?):
· Take a previously unanalyzed page of Voynich text, f31v, which I will provide below.
· Apply the proposed dictionary and grammar rules to "translate" it.
· Critical Analysis: Were you able to generate a coherent "translation" without modifying the rules? If the answer is yes, this is not a validity test. It only demonstrates that the system is a self-consistent set of rules. Proceed with tests 2 and 3, which are the crucial ones.
2. Signal vs. Noise Distinction Test (Negative Control):
· Step A: Generate a "Fake Voynich Text". Use the same roots (chol, daiin, etc.) and prefix/suffix rules, but combine them randomly to create a text with the same length and superficial structure as a real page (e.g., f22r).
· Step B: Attempt to "translate" this random text using the same system.
· Key Question: Is the "translation" of the random text equally coherent, or more incoherent, than the translation of the real text?
· Metric: If the random text produces a narrative as plausible as the original, the system has no discriminatory power and is detecting illusory patterns (pareidolia). This test is a "pass/fail". If it fails here, the system is invalidated.
3. Predictive Capacity Test (The most important one):
· Step A: From page f22r, deliberately hide one complete line, for example, line 4.
· Step B: Using only lines 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of f22r and the system's rules, predict the general structure and key tokens that the hidden line 4 should contain. Do not guess the exact line, but its function. (e.g., "Given the sequence of operations, line 4 should probably contain the result of the process, with roots like daiin and state suffixes like -y or -ol").
· Step C: Reveal the actual line 4 and compare.
· Critical Analysis:
· High Success: If you predicted the presence of specific tokens like daiin or the line's function accurately.
· Low Success: If you only correctly predicted that it was a "result line," but with generic terms.
· Failure: If your prediction does not resemble the real line at all. A valid system must have some predictive power.
---
f31v
podair Sheedy otedy oteedy qotolcheo s arar oteey dkarar als
ytchos ocThey okeeos cheody okeey kchody daiin cheody keedy
ykeeo daiin Shedal okedy okey keody okchey sair okees o lkedy
dair cThedy qokedy okeody chedar oked al ocKhedy okeedy otas
ykeos cheeoy ar aiin
pcheeody qop chedal eeecFhy chefchol or cheef alaiin opal Sheo otar
olteedam ches chol keeol checKhy okeol okal oky cheokar okor ary
yk aiin chee kSheey ychek eeor cheor or checThy okechoked lchey okam
ytecheol Sheoeky okeos aiin acThedy chkaiin chetchey cTheey okear
dar seoar al kar oeeeos cheos aiin o ekeey okeo kor oteol ain
saiin ar cKheos chedy okeey qoear oraiin cheom
And this is the response that the AI generated:
Summary of Results:
1. Test 1 (Internal Consistency): The system is self-consistent and can generate coherent translations in morphological terms, but this does not validate its accuracy.
2. Test 2 (Negative Control): The system fails to distinguish between real and random text, suggesting pareidolia and a lack of discriminatory power.
3. Test 3 (Predictive Capacity): The system has low predictive power, capable of predicting only general elements but not specific details.
Implications:
· The translation system based on functional morphological analysis, while internally consistent, is not valid for deciphering the Voynich Manuscript. The tests indicate that the detected patterns could be illusory and do not reflect a real language.
· It is likely that the system is overfitted to the analyzed data, capturing noise rather than a true signal.
The prompt was generated with AI, so it can stay in this sub-forum and reach the right people.I also want to clarify that although your system may pass all the tests, I do not claim the authority to say that you have solved the manuscript. But maybe you could post it in this sub-forum where the light doesn't reach...Help, get me out of here.
PS: I would like to read those theories that pass the tests 
PS-2: I leave the moderators free to do whatever they want with this thread. I'm new and don't know how many things work.Thank you
|
|
|
| Possibility for an a-priori constructed philosophical mathematical language |
|
Posted by: qoltedy - 10-10-2025, 01:24 AM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- Replies (10)
|
 |
In Koen's most recent video, he interviewed an expert in historical constructed languages. She mentioned the Lingua Ignota, Enochian, and even more recent examples up to the 18th century. Her argument was that generally those examples feature statistical patterns that are more consistent with natural languages, for example Lingua Ignota mapping directly in syntax to Latin.
But what I found lacking was the discussion of "mathematical", "philosophical" and a-priori constructed languages that gained huge popularity during the 1600s. Wilkins, Leibniz and several others all made or proposed highly structured mathematical conlangs which group all things into a hierarchy and have very well defined, and often alien grammar and semantic systems.
What is to say that the constructed language of the Voynich can't be a constructed language much more similar to these examples than Lingua Ignota?
It would be anomalous for a pre-1600s thinker to devise such a strange and structured mathematical conlang, but everything about the Voynich is already anomalous. It's not a stretch to believe the author likely had a very different thought process to most people of their era, if not most people in all of history.
I think this idea should be taken seriously as an avenue of research, and compare the Voynich Manuscript more to languages like Wilkin's ordered mathematical language, or even modern examples line Ithkuil, than historical examples of constructed languages that closely resemble natural languages, of which there are already very few to compare
|
|
|
|
| writting hand / Currier hand |
|
Posted by: quimqu - 09-10-2025, 09:52 PM - Forum: Voynich Talk
- Replies (5)
|
|
Hello,
sorry to post this thread but it is for me not clear what is the difference between Currier hand and writting hand. I suppose that the scribas are writting hand, but what are the Currier hands?
Thank you and sorry for this basic question.
|
|
|
|
| Why is there even a Voynich B? |
|
Posted by: Skoove - 08-10-2025, 07:11 PM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- Replies (27)
|
|
I often wonder about Voynich A and Voynich B and why there even are two different 'languages'. It is likely not that important to most solutions but it always seemed strange to me that there even would be two different 'languages'.
Since I am personally in favour of a cipher solution, my favourite theory is that Voynich A had a 'flaw' in its cipher method or simply that Voynich B was a new and improved cipher. I'm also partial to the idea of the same cipher being used on two different underlying languages.
What is everyone else's personal theories?
|
|
|
|
| Friend "deciphers" Voynich manuscript. |
|
Posted by: Magical Raven - 07-10-2025, 01:57 AM - Forum: Theories & Solutions
- Replies (7)
|
|
Hello, I'm sorry for my poor English; it's not my native language. I'm using Google Translate for this post.
My name is Cuervo, I want to tell you a little anecdote. A very close friend of mine from engineering school. He's smarter than me, and as a narcissist, it pains me to admit it. That's why for years I always challenged him to do intellectual competitions, like solving riddles or complex problems. He always beat me.
One day I decided to find an impossible riddle, and I found this one, the Voynich manuscript. I know many people have been working on this for centuries. I told myself it would be a good joke to get him into this intellectual bind.
One day I was at his house and I simply showed him the digitized manuscript, a few pages, and briefly told him what it was about.It was the first time I saw him put on a serious or worried face; nothing he saw made any sense. I thought at that moment, "I've got him!"But then he smiled somewhat worriedly and asked me to give him the name of the riddle, which he would then look at in more depth.
Weeks went by without seeing him at school. He didn't answer his cell phone or the doorbell at home. I was worried about him. One day he just sent me a message on my cell phone, saying "escucha tonto... Deja de tocar el timbre de mi casa, me duele la cabeza" And then he shared with me a some text clippings from different pages from the "botanical sector with chimera plants."I want to share with you some excerpts from texts from different folios that he said were the most reliable. And I sincerely ask you to debunk this guy. I'm not going to give him any more victories. Please help.
f8r: Shor chor qokchy daiin otchy qokchor chor daiin => Apply heat to the flower, mix with the leaves, boil the seed, and then boil the leaves again along with the root.
f16r: pocheody qopchey sykaiin opchy dor ychy daiin dy chor orom ychykchy otly => Combine seed and stem with heat, work on leaves and flowers, add root and stem to the extract.
He also clarified to me that you don't have connectors or a structure like the one we know from the Voynich manuscript.Words are capsules composed of information and processes. He said something like prefix + root + suffix.But the truth is, I don't understand any of that, so I'm asking for your help. He also adds structure and connectors to the texts he translates so that they are easy to understand and read fluently.
(I'm posting this in "Theories and Solutions" because I have a theory that he didn't solve anything... haha)
|
|
|
|
| Finding parallels for Month Names handwriting (Work in Progress) |
|
Posted by: Koen G - 06-10-2025, 10:05 AM - Forum: Marginalia
- Replies (46)
|
 |
At VMD 2025, I discussed the results of the research Marco and I did to learn more about the origin of the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. script (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). Our conclusions were that the earlier you go in the 15th century, the more likely you are to find people writing like this. The best results were found in central Germany, around Fulda and Mainz, with an "outlier" in Zurich.
We are now hoping to do something similar for the script of the month names. Over the last week, we've been setting up parameters and testing them, in order to come to a workable system that feels like it's selecting for relevant features.
Here is the spreadsheet: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
We have about 20 entries so far, and the best results sit around 0.60, which is relatively low. Moreover, these are still all over the place, from 1404 to 1494, France to Heidelberg. The challenge appears to be finding the right type of script; the handwriting of the month names is very informal and cursive (all letters connected), while manuscripts tend to be more formal and less connected. So far, we have some success finding cursive hands in charters instead of codices, but there may be better types of sources we haven't thought about yet.
Seeing that this is more challenging than f116v, we can use all the input we can get. The advantage is that the best matches are yet to be found: if the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. spreadsheet is an indication, the entire top 10 should still be up for grabs. So if you have some time to look through samples, there's a good chance you will make an immediate contribution to our understanding of the manuscript. As with f116v, finders of top samples will of course be credited and mentioned in any later discussions of the results. We need all the help we can get, as different people with different heuristics and skills are able to explore a wider range of sources.
Just post a link here and I or Marco will add them to the sheet. If you would like to work on the sheet directly, just ask and I will give you editing permission. (Ask through the sheet, or PM me the email address).
I tried to set up the sheet in an intuitive way, but please let me know if you have any questions or remarks. Any help is greatly appreciated!
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: 8QtszQI.png]](https://i.imgur.com/8QtszQI.png)
![[Image: YZj4YIW.png]](https://i.imgur.com/YZj4YIW.png)
![[Image: w7oUmbb.png]](https://i.imgur.com/w7oUmbb.png)
![[Image: Gk8pLuw.png]](https://i.imgur.com/Gk8pLuw.png)
![[Image: M5he2he.png]](https://i.imgur.com/M5he2he.png)