+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Analysis of the text (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-41.html)
+--- Thread: Bifolio as a functional unit? (/thread-5131.html)
RE: Bifolio as a functional unit? - anejati - 29-12-2025
(15-12-2025, 08:29 AM)kckluge Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(13-12-2025, 02:22 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.That's exactly what Colin and I have done with Latent Semantic Analysis. More here, and article coming soon:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The evidence from Colin's analytics shows exactly what you're asking - a very strong textual correlation across conjoint bifolia in both the balneology and stars sections. We did NOT find that correlation across conjoint bifolia in the herbal section, which suggests that, as long suspected, each herbal page is it's own semantic unit.
In other words, 104v and 115r (conjoint) are more closely related than, say, 104v and 105r (consecutive).
It seems to me that this (the difference in LSA behavior between the balneology & stars section bifolia on the one hand and the herbal bifolia on the other) speaks strongly against theories involving glossolalia/automatic writing, Ruggian grids, self-citation methods, etc. because there is no obvious reason for such text generation mechanisms to produce bifolia with different LSA behavior in different (types of) sections. Or am I misunderstanding what the LSA analysis is saying about the herbal bifolia vs the balneology & stars bifolia?
Based on what I'm reading here, self-citation can, in theory, explain the LSA behavior, but you have to add an extra assumption: That self-citation in non-herbal sections was done
at the bifolium level, but in the herbal section it was done on the page level. I would argue that indeed this extra assumption does work against the self-citation theory.