+- 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: A One-Page Ledger Method for Generating Voynich-Like Text (/thread-5752.html)
RE: A One-Page Ledger Method for Generating Voynich-Like Text - oshfdk - 18-05-2026
(17-05-2026, 11:47 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Because formalizing the process lets you test it. You can't test "a scribe imitating visual patterns" — it's too vague. You can test "a scribe copying visible words and modifying them by substituting similar glyphs" — it makes specific, falsifiable predictions about word networks, spatial clustering, frequency-connectivity correlation, and positional effects.
I understand that "a scribe imitating visual patterns" can be modeled by listing some specific rules and running some statistical tests to check whether applying these rules can produce something similar to the Voynich MS. But to me this raises two points (would be perfect if this already covered in some of your papers, but it's been a while since I read them, and to be frank I didn't study them deeply, mostly the set up and the conclusions):
1. Matching visual patterns is a much broader process than just modifying words glyph by glyph. The existence of the curve line system may suggest that Voynichese words are visually constrained, and it's possible that the actual self-citation might not work at glyph level at all. For example, maybe it works at stroke level, rearranging strokes according to some rules. Using only glyph-based rules is much easier for testing, but may miss some important part of the visual process. Is it likely that the rules defined using glyph codes may not be a good proxy for how the manuscript was created at all?
To give an example of what I'm talking about, this k m f pattern from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. 4x17 sequence could represent some evolution in shapes, with m looking like a mid point transit character of k and f. When a scribe works on modifying and mixing visual patterns, the process may not involve splitting a word glyph by glyph, but rather working on a different arrangement of similar strokes.
2. While it's easy to devise a test that would show that self-citation is possible, how to tell apart self citation as primary text generation method from actual citation, as in using past words to actually refer to the same or similar concepts in the text, especially in the context of a constructed language? To give a specific fictional example, imagine a constructed language where the vocabulary is expanded as needed while writing the text (similar to how a nomenclator would be populated), where new concepts are introduced by modifying words for already existing concepts according to some loose rules (essentially this is not unlike how many Chinese characters work). Suppose the text is talking about heat and denotes heat as daiin. On the next page a word for fire is needed, so we use a loose rule of adding o- for intensification and call it odaiin. Then if we need a word for scorching, but odaiin is already taken, so we pop on some extra disambiguation prefix like qodaiin. While this looks very much like citation, in fact we don't even look at the past pages, to write a new word we just consult the dictionary and if it's not there we add a new entry. Will this produce essentially the same patterns as the self-citation?
RE: A One-Page Ledger Method for Generating Voynich-Like Text - oshfdk - 18-05-2026
(18-05-2026, 10:22 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To give a specific fictional example, imagine a constructed language where the vocabulary is expanded as needed while writing the text (similar to how a nomenclator would be populated), where new concepts are introduced by modifying words for already existing concepts according to some loose rules (essentially this is not unlike how many Chinese characters work). Suppose the text is talking about heat and denotes heat as daiin. On the next page a word for fire is needed, so we use a loose rule of adding o- for intensification and call it odaiin. Then if we need a word for scorching, but odaiin is already taken, so we pop on some extra disambiguation prefix like qodaiin.
By the way, to make it less anachronistic, we can think of this not as of a constructed language, but as a mnemonic nomenclator. The main problem with the nomenclator ciphers, as I understand it, they are very hard to read and write since there is no connection between the code and the word. However, if new codes are extensions of related existing codes, this provides built in mnemonics (daiin words are all related to heat) and ease of lookup both ways. When writing a word related to heat you have to look it up on the 'daiin' page of the nomenclator and when decoding word 'olchedaiin' you will know to look it up on the 'daiin' page too, instead of keeping two separate word to index and index to word dictionaries. Again, similar to how Chinese character radicals work.
RE: A One-Page Ledger Method for Generating Voynich-Like Text - Torsten - 19-05-2026
(18-05-2026, 10:22 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.1. Matching visual patterns is a much broader process than just modifying words glyph by glyph. The existence of the curve line system may suggest that Voynichese words are visually constrained, and it's possible that the actual self-citation might not work at glyph level at all. For example, maybe it works at stroke level, rearranging strokes according to some rules. Using only glyph-based rules is much easier for testing, but may miss some important part of the visual process. Is it likely that the rules defined using glyph codes may not be a good proxy for how the manuscript was created at all?
You're right that the scribe did operate at the stroke level. Currier noted in 1976 that the glyphs are built from shared base strokes — "you can make up almost any of the other letters out of these two symbols." A glyph has a shape but the glyph consists at the same time of strokes.
For instance the ligature <ch> consists of two <e>-glyphs connected by a dash. But there are also instances of three <e> strokes connected with a dash like in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. on f82r. My Rule 1 — replace one or more glyphs by similar ones — is a glyph-level formalization of what is often a stroke level modification like the additional stroke changing "ch" into "sh".
Voynich words are also visually constrained. Schwerdtfeger described in 2008 the following four design rules for Voynich words: (1) line-glyphs can follow line-glyphs or <a>; (2) curve-glyphs and <a> can follow curve-glyphs; (3) the <l>-glyph can be used as a curve-glyph or as a line-glyph; and (4) gallows glyphs count as curve glyphs.
(18-05-2026, 10:22 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.2. While it's easy to devise a test that would show that self-citation is possible, how to tell apart self citation as primary text generation method from actual citation, as in using past words to actually refer to the same or similar concepts in the text, especially in the context of a constructed language?
Your constructed language scenario — where "daiin" means "heat," "odaiin" means "fire," "qodaiin" means "scorching" — is a genuine alternative that would produce similar word families. But it makes predictions the VMS doesn't satisfy:
A constructed language dictionary produces consistent usage. If "daiin" means "heat," it should appear in consistent semantic contexts. In the VMS, "daiin" appears everywhere — in every section, next to every kind of word. No semantic clustering is detectable.
A constructed language doesn't show a continuous evolutionary gradient. If the dictionary is fixed, the vocabulary shouldn't evolve from section to section. But the VMS shows "chol" dominant in early sections, "chedy" dominant in late sections, with smooth intermediate stages. A dictionary doesn't evolve — a copying process does (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).
Continuous evolution follows from the incremental nature of the modification process. Each new word differs minimally from its source; accumulated modifications over many copying events produce gradual vocabulary drift. The direction of evolution is determined by the asymmetry of the process: new variants can only appear after their source words exist, creating a temporal arrow from early forms to late forms. “Words typical for Currier A also exist in Currier B, but not the other way round,” because late-emerging variants “could not appear on pages written previously” (Timm and Schinner, 2020, pp. 8–9). This is “an automatic side-effect” of the process, not evidence of changing writing strategies.
A constructed language doesn't show line-boundary production effects. If words have fixed meanings, their form shouldn't depend on line position. But some words appear almost exclusively at line starts or line ends. For instance "dsheey" appears at line starts 7 out of 8 times (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). Words looked up in a dictionary don't care about margins. The reason is that "the source for the first word in each line could only be found within the previous lines. Since the first and the last word in each line are easy to spot, the most obvious way is to pick them as a source for the generation of a group at the beginning or at the end of a line. For the second glyph group it is also possible to select the first group as a source. Since the first group in a line usually has a prefix the simplest change is to remove this prefix." (Timm 2014, p. 19). This is the reason that the second glyph group is shorter than the first group in 48% of the lines and longer in only 32% leading to the following statistical observation by Elmar Vogt:
A constructed language doesn't show cross-line independence. If the text carries meaning, that meaning should continue across line breaks — sentences span lines in any meaningful text. But quimqu showed that within-line predictability is strong (~30% top-1) while cross-line predictability drops to near random. A text composed from a dictionary doesn't reset at line boundaries.
A constructed language with semantic prefixes doesn't show prefix-suffix independence. If "o-" means intensification, then prefix choice constrains meaning, which constrains which suffixes co-occur — because you don't intensify every concept equally often. But as you and dashstofsk demonstrated, prefix and suffix are selected nearly independently in the VMS. A semantic prefix system produces dependencies. A copying system produces independence.
See Table 3 in Timm & Schinner 2020, p. 10:
Note that this table reproduces the most frequent word types <daiin>, <ol>, and <chedy>.
A constructed language with semantic prefixes also wouldn't produce the frequency hierarchy observed in the VMS. In a semantic system, word frequency reflects how often a concept is discussed — unrelated to the word's visual similarity to other words. In the VMS, frequency and visual similarity are directly correlated. For instance, in most cases, words with "sh" are less frequent than the corresponding variant using "ch". Also words using "p" or "f" instead of "k" and "t" are generally less frequent. The frequency-connectivity correlation arises through a feedback loop inherent in the copying process. Frequent words are more likely to be selected as copying templates, generating more variants; the existence of more variants increases the probability that members of that word family are selected in subsequent copying events. This self reinforcing cycle ensures that the most frequently used words accumulate the most similar neighbors.
Your scenario is testable — and each test distinguishes it from self-citation. The VMS matches the self-citation predictions and fails the constructed-language predictions.
RE: A One-Page Ledger Method for Generating Voynich-Like Text - Dunsel - 19-05-2026
(19-05-2026, 12:49 AM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.A constructed language doesn't show a continuous evolutionary gradient. If the dictionary is fixed, the vocabulary shouldn't evolve from section to section. But the VMS shows "chol" dominant in early sections, "chedy" dominant in late sections, with smooth intermediate stages. A dictionary doesn't evolve — a copying process does (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).
I'm not convinced the ho/ed bigram evidence supports a continuous drift model. If ed/Currier B/Scribe 2+ emerged gradually through incremental copy-mutate, I would expect broad transitional zones and smooth redistribution of ed behavior across folios. Instead, the ed distribution appears highly clustered, with long stable low-ed regions written by Scribe 1 followed by abrupt activation zones written by Scribe 2+. That aligns much more closely with production/scribal boundaries than with lexical drift.
The attached charts are difficult to reconcile with a purely continuous evolution model. ho/Scribe 1/Currier A folios remain remarkably stable and locally reducible, while ED+/Scribe 2 behavior expands abruptly rather than progressively. That looks less like slow drift and more like a regime change in production methods or weighting strategy.
RE: A One-Page Ledger Method for Generating Voynich-Like Text - dashstofsk - 19-05-2026
(18-05-2026, 01:19 PM)Dunsel Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If this book is a hoax or copy/mutate, someone or some group went out of their way to make it look legitimate.
This is my hypothesis also. The writer wanted to make people believe that this was a rare piece from some distant land where they used a strange alphabet. In order to create the deception he had to give the manuscript a semblance of genuineness, give it some definite structure. Otherwise unstructured random writing would have been quickly dismissed as a fraud. The strange alphabet perpetuates the interest in a way that any local alphabet would not have done. The fact that the manuscript has existed to this day is proof that the writer succeeded.
Today with the assistance of programmable computers we can analyse the text and see something of the way it was done. Humans are not good at mimicking randomness. Psychological tricks have a habit of leading us to make repeats and to reuse text. And we can see this in the writing.
We can only guess how the writer achieved it. Perhaps other people at that time tried to create something similar and failed. And perhaps the writer of the VMS noted those failures and strove to avoid the same mistakes.
For me the actual method is not really important. It is enough to show evidence that the manuscript is artificial, constructed and meaningless.
RE: A One-Page Ledger Method for Generating Voynich-Like Text - Torsten - 19-05-2026
(19-05-2026, 02:07 AM)Dunsel Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm not convinced the ho/ed bigram evidence supports a continuous drift model. If ed/Currier B/Scribe 2+ emerged gradually through incremental copy-mutate, I would expect broad transitional zones and smooth redistribution of ed behavior across folios. Instead, the ed distribution appears highly clustered, with long stable low-ed regions written by Scribe 1 followed by abrupt activation zones written by Scribe 2+. That aligns much more closely with production/scribal boundaries than with lexical drift.
The attached charts are difficult to reconcile with a purely continuous evolution model. ho/Scribe 1/Currier A folios remain remarkably stable and locally reducible, while ED+/Scribe 2 behavior expands abruptly rather than progressively. That looks less like slow drift and more like a regime change in production methods or weighting strategy.
The "ed" bigram frequency is actually a projection of the word-level <chol> to <chedy> evolution onto the character level. <chedy> contains "ed". <shedy> contains "ed". The "ed" frequency per section is the <chedy>-family frequency - just measured at a coarser granularity.
The intermediate forms document the transition step by step: <chol> → <cheol> → <cheo> → <chey> → <chedy>. Each step is a minimal modification of the previous form. The intermediate forms are attested in the text with specific frequencies that trace the gradient across sections (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).
Whether this looks abrupt or gradual depends on whether you view it in the current binding order or in the writing order. In the current binding order, Herbal A and Herbal B bifolia are interleaved within the same quires — early-production and late-production pages sit next to each other. That creates the "abrupt activation zones" you see in your charts. In the reconstructed writing order (Herbal A → Pharma A → Cosmo → Herbal B → Stars (Quire 20) → Biological (Quire 13)), the same data forms a smooth gradient with no abrupt transitions. The first step from <chol> to <cheol> even happens within Currier A. Words like <cheol> are more frequent in the Pharma section than in the Herbal A section.
Your own You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. experiment actually demonstrates this. You showed that starting from one page and expanding incrementally produces viable Voynich-like text — with the vocabulary evolving as the scribe writes. That's continuous evolution from a seed. The <ed> gradient across the manuscript is the same process scaled up. The "abrupt" boundaries disappear when you reorder folios by vocabulary similarity rather than by folio number.
RE: A One-Page Ledger Method for Generating Voynich-Like Text - nablator - 19-05-2026
(19-05-2026, 02:07 AM)Dunsel Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm not convinced the ho/ed bigram evidence supports a continuous drift model. If ed/Currier B/Scribe 2+ emerged gradually through incremental copy-mutate, I would expect broad transitional zones and smooth redistribution of ed behavior across folios. Instead, the ed distribution appears highly clustered, with long stable low-ed regions written by Scribe 1 followed by abrupt activation zones written by Scribe 2+. That aligns much more closely with production/scribal boundaries than with lexical drift.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. explains it.
RE: A One-Page Ledger Method for Generating Voynich-Like Text - tavie - 19-05-2026
(18-05-2026, 11:03 AM)dashstofsk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.However the flow of the writing suggests that the writer did not pause after each word to think of what ought to come next. So I am still inclined to believe that the method is more simple, and doesn't involve looking back at previous words.
How do we know this? I feel I've read or heard something about the fluency with which glyphs within each word were written (probably Lisa) but I've not heard about it from word to word. What would we expect to see/not see if there were pauses?
RE: A One-Page Ledger Method for Generating Voynich-Like Text - Dunsel - 19-05-2026
(19-05-2026, 09:50 AM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Your own You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. experiment actually demonstrates this. You showed that starting from one page and expanding incrementally produces viable Voynich-like text — with the vocabulary evolving as the scribe writes. That's continuous evolution from a seed. The <ed> gradient across the manuscript is the same process scaled up. The "abrupt" boundaries disappear when you reorder folios by vocabulary similarity rather than by folio number.
I'm going to have to rethink this. I ran some new tests with my analyzer and the latter sections are still showing the same basic copy/mutate with source sheets. It's not quite as neat and clean as herbal pages, but, the mechanism is still there.
q=quire
s=sheet
+=number of words found
Note, many of the RESIDUE pages have words that can be resolved as having come from the CORE or SECONDAY sheet through ED1 or ED2. Unresolved are words that may or may not have a parent word elsewhere but fall outside the sheet classification.
Note: Core sheets are classified as having parents for 10 words or more. Secondary sheets 4-9 parents and residuals <=3. So, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is showing no core or secondary sheet as it only has 3 words. But, those 3 words all resolve to a single sheet which is why it's only showing a residual.
Herbal Pages
| Folio | CORE | SECONDARY | RESIDUE | Unresolved |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| f1r | none | none | none | 0 |
| f1v | q1s1 +24 | none | none | 0 |
| f2r | q1s1 +23 | none | none | 0 |
| f2v | q1s1 +15 | q1s2 +4 | none | 0 |
| f3r | q1s1 +24 | q1s2 +5 | none | 0 |
| f3v | q1s1 +26 | none | q1s2 +3, q1s3 +1 | 0 |
| f4r | q1s2 +17 | none | q1s1 +2, q1s3 +2 | 1 |
| f4v | q1s1 +19 | q1s3 +6 | q1s4 +3 | 1 |
| f5r | q1s1 +11 | q1s2 +5 | q1s3 +3 | 2 |
| f5v | q1s2 +13 | none | q1s1 +2, q1s3 +3 | 2 |
| f6r | q1s4 +17 | q1s3 +4 | q1s1 +1, q1s2 +1 | 1 |
| f6v | q1s1 +24 | q1s3 +6 | q1s4 +1, q1s2 +1 | 0 |
| f7r | q1s4 +20 | none | q1s3 +3, q1s1 +2 | 1 |
| f7v | q1s3 +22 | none | q1s2 +2, q1s1 +1 | 3 |
| f8r | q1s2 +29 | q1s1 +6 | q1s3 +2, q1s4 +1 | 0 |
| f8v | q1s1 +17 | none | q1s3 +3, q1s4 +3, q1s2 +3 | 3 |
| f9r | q1s1 +23 | none | q1s3 +3, q1s4 +2, q1s2 +1 | 2 |
| f9v | q1s3 +16 | none | q1s4 +3, q1s2 +2 | 0 |
| f10r | q1s4 +21 | q1s1 +4 | q1s3 +2, q1s2 +1 | 1 |
| f10v | q1s1 +13 | none | q1s2 +3, q2s1 +1, q2s2 +1 | 0 |
| f11r | q1s3 +14 | none | q1s1 +2 | 1 |
| f11v | q1s3 +15 | none | q1s2 +2 | 0 |
| f13r | q1s2 +16 | q2s1 +5 | q1s1 +1 | 0 |
| f13v | none | q2s2 +9 | q1s1 +3 | 0 |
| f14r | q1s3 +18 | none | q1s4 +3, q2s2 +3, q1s1 +2, q1s2 +1 | 0 |
| f14v | q1s3 +13 | q2s1 +5 | q2s3 +3, q1s2 +3 | 0 |
| f15r | q1s1 +16 | none | q2s3 +3, q2s1 +2, q1s4 +2 | 2 |
| f15v | q1s2 +12 | none | q2s2 +2, q2s1 +3 | 1 |
| f16r | q1s3 +18 | q1s1 +5 | q1s4 +1, q2s2 +2, q2s3 +1 | 0 |
| f16v | q2s2 +15 | none | q1s3 +2, q1s1 +2, q2s1 +1 | 0 |
| f17r | q1s1 +22 | q3s1 +5 | none | 0 |
| f17v | q2s1 +17 | none | q1s4 +2, q2s2 +2 | 1 |
| f18r | q1s1 +15 | q2s1 +5 | q2s2 +2 | 0 |
| f18v | q1s1 +16 | q1s3 +5 | q2s1 +3 | 0 |
| f19r | q1s2 +18 | none | q2s2 +2, q3s1 +2, q1s1 +1 | 1 |
| f19v | q1s3 +19 | q2s1 +6 | q1s1 +2 | 0 |
| f20r | q1s1 +33, q1s3 +11 | q2s2 +7 | none | 0 |
| f20v | q1s3 +26 | q2s1 +5 | q1s1 +2 | 0 |
| f21r | q1s3 +19 | q2s1 +5 | q1s1 +3 | 0 |
| f21v | q1s3 +20 | q3s2 +7 | q1s2 +3 | 0 |
| f22r | q1s1 +21 | q3s1 +6 | q2s1 +3 | 0 |
| f22v | q1s3 +22 | none | q2s1 +3, q3s2 +3 | 1 |
| f23r | q1s3 +24 | q2s1 +5 | q3s2 +3 | 1 |
| f23v | q1s3 +20 | q2s1 +6 | q3s1 +3 | 0 |
| f24r | q1s3 +21 | none | q1s1 +3, q3s1 +2, q2s1 +1 | 1 |
| f24v | q1s3 +16 | q3s2 +5 | q2s1 +2 | 0 |
| f25r | q1s1 +22 | q2s1 +7 | q1s3 +2 | 1 |
| f25v | q1s3 +17 | q3s2 +7 | q1s1 +2 | 0 |
| f26r | q1s2 +25 | q1s1 +5 | q3s1 +3 | 0 |
| f26v | q1s2 +20 | q2s1 +6 | q3s1 +2 | 0 |
| f27r | q1s1 +25 | q2s1 +7 | q3s1 +3 | 1 |
| f27v | q1s3 +21 | q3s1 +5 | q2s1 +3 | 0 |
| f28r | q1s1 +23 | q2s1 +7 | q3s2 +3 | 0 |
| f28v | q1s3 +19 | q2s1 +6 | q3s2 +3 | 0 |
| f29r | q1s3 +22 | q2s1 +6 | q3s2 +3 | 0 |
| f29v | q1s3 +21 | q2s1 +6 | q3s1 +2 | 0 |
| f30r | q1s1 +22 | q3s1 +6 | q2s1 +3 | 0 |
| f30v | q1s3 +18 | q3s2 +6 | q2s1 +3 | 0 |
| f31r | q4s2 +26 | q1s3 +6 | q2s1 +3 | 0 |
| f31v | q4s2 +21 | q3s2 +5 | q1s3 +3 | 0 |
| f32r | q4s2 +20 | q1s3 +5 | q3s2 +3 | 0 |
| f32v | q4s2 +23 | none | q1s3 +3, q3s1 +2 | 2 |
| f33r | q4s2 +20 | q1s3 +7 | q3s2 +2 | 0 |
| f33v | q4s2 +21 | q1s3 +7 | q3s2 +3 | 0 |
| f34r | q4s2 +20 | q1s3 +6 | q3s2 +2 | 0 |
| f34v | q4s2 +24 | q1s3 +5 | q3s2 +3 | 0 |
| f35r | q4s2 +23 | q1s3 +6 | q3s1 +3 | 0 |
| f35v | q4s2 +19 | q1s3 +6 | q3s1 +2 | 0 |
| f36r | q4s2 +23 | q1s3 +5 | q3s2 +3 | 0 |
| f36v | q4s2 +24 | q1s3 +6 | q3s2 +3 | 0 |
| f37r | q4s2 +19 | q1s3 +7 | q3s2 +2 | 0 |
| f37v | q4s2 +22 | q1s3 +5 | q3s2 +3 | 0 |
| f38r | q4s2 +20 | q1s3 +5 | q3s1 +3 | 0 |
| f38v | q4s2 +21 | q1s3 +6 | q3s2 +3 | 0 |
| f39r | q5s2 +25 | q1s3 +6 | q4s2 +2 | 1 |
| f39v | q5s1 +22 | q4s2 +7 | q1s3 +3 | 1 |
| f40r | q5s1 +20 | q4s2 +6 | q1s3 +3 | 2 |
| f40v | q5s1 +22 | q4s2 +7 | q1s3 +3 | 0 |
| f41r | q5s1 +23 | q4s2 +7 | q1s3 +3 | 0 |
| f41v | q5s1 +20 | q4s2 +6 | q1s3 +3 | 0 |
| f42r | q5s1 +21 | q4s2 +6 | q1s3 +3 | 0 |
| f42v | q5s1 +23 | q4s2 +7 | q1s3 +3 | 1 |
| f43r | q6s3 +23 | q4s2 +6 | q1s3 +3 | 0 |
| f43v | q6s3 +24 | q4s2 +7 | q1s3 +3 | 0 |
| f44r | q6s3 +22 | q4s2 +7 | q1s3 +3 | 0 |
| f44v | q6s3 +24 | q4s2 +6 | q1s3 +3 | 0 |
| f45r | q6s3 +23 | q4s2 +7 | q1s3 +3 | 0 |
| f45v | q6s3 +22 | q4s2 +6 | q1s3 +3 | 0 |
| f46r | q6s3 +24 | q4s2 +7 | q1s3 +3 | 0 |
| f46v | q6s3 +23 | q4s2 +6 | q1s3 +3 | 0 |
| f47r | q6s3 +23 | q4s2 +7 | q1s3 +3 | 0 |
| f47v | q6s3 +22 | q4s2 +6 | q1s3 +3 | 0 |
| f48r | q6s3 +24 | q4s2 +7 | q1s3 +3 | 0 |
| f48v | q6s3 +23 | q4s2 +6 | q1s3 +3 | 0 |
| f49r | q7s1 +22 | q6s3 +6 | q4s2 +3 | 0 |
| f49v | q7s1 +21 | q6s3 +7 | q4s2 +3 | 0 |
| f50r | q7s1 +23 | q6s3 +6 | q4s2 +3 | 0 |
| f50v | q7s1 +21 | q6s3 +7 | q4s2 +3 | 0 |
| f51r | q7s1 +22 | q6s3 +6 | q4s2 +3 | 0 |
| f51v | q7s1 +21 | q6s3 +7 | q4s2 +3 | 0 |
| f52r | q7s1 +23 | q6s3 +6 | q4s2 +3 | 0 |
| f52v | q7s1 +21 | q6s3 +7 | q4s2 +3 | 0 |
| f53r | q7s3 +25 | q6s3 +6 | q4s2 +3 | 0 |
| f53v | q7s3 +22 | q6s3 +7 | q4s2 +3 | 0 |
| f54r | q7s3 +23 | q6s3 +6 | q4s2 +3 | 0 |
| f54v | q7s3 +22 | q6s3 +7 | q4s2 +3 | 0 |
| f55r | q7s3 +23 | q6s3 +6 | q4s2 +3 | 0 |
| f55v | q7s3 +22 | q6s3 +7 | q4s2 +3 | 0 |
| f56r | q1s3 +16 | none | q6s2 +2, q4s3 +2, q6s1 +2 | 3 |
| f56v | q7s1 +13 | none | q1s2 +3, q5s4 +2, q4s2 +3 | 0 |
| f57r | q7s3 +15 | q4s2 +6, q6s1 +4 | none | 0 |
| f57v | q5s1 +16 | q5s2 +7 | q4s2 +3 | 0 |
| f58r | q6s3 +29, q1s3 +15, q7s3 +10 | none | none | 0 |
| f58v | q8s2 +25, q7s3 +10 | q4s2 +7 | none | 0 |
| f65r | none | none | q8s2 +3 | 3 |
| f65v | q5s1 +16 | q5s2 +4 | q8s2 +1, q4s3 +1 | 0 |
| f66r | q8s2 +36, q6s3 +11 | q1s1 +9 | none | 0 |
| f66v | q8s2 +26 | q6s3 +7, q7s4 +4 | none | 0 |
Post Herbal Pages
| Folio | CORE | SECONDARY | RESIDUE | Unresolved |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| f67r1 | q8s1 +32 | q8s2 +9, q6s2 +7 | none | 0 |
| f67r2 | q8s2 +33 | q8s1 +9, q1s1 +4 | none | 0 |
| f67v1 | q6s3 +23 | q8s1 +6 | q4s2 +2 | 0 |
| f67v2 | q8s2 +19 | q1s1 +6 | q1s3 +2 | 0 |
| f68r1 | q9s1 +21 | q7s4 +6 | q8s2 +2 | 0 |
| f68r2 | q8s2 +19 | q9s1 +7, q7s1 +6 | none | 0 |
| f68r3 | q8s1 +21 | q8s2 +7 | q7s1 +3 | 0 |
| f68v1 | q8s2 +17 | q9s1 +6 | q8s1 +2, q1s1 +1, q4s3 +1, q1s3 +1 | 1 |
| f68v2 | q9s1 +28 | q6s1 +6 | q8s1 +3 | 0 |
| f68v3 | q9s1 +32 | q8s2 +7, q6s3 +4 | none | 0 |
| f69r | q9s1 +26 | q8s2 +6 | q6s3 +2 | 0 |
| f69v | q9s1 +27 | q4s2 +4 | q8s2 +2 | 0 |
| f70r1 | q9s1 +30 | none | q8s1 +3, q4s2 +2, q7s3 +1, q6s4 +1 | 0 |
| f70r2 | q9s1 +32 | q8s2 +4, q1s2 +4 | none | 0 |
| f70v1 | q9s1 +27 | q8s2 +5 | q8s1 +3 | 0 |
| f70v2 | q9s1 +26 | q8s1 +7, q8s2 +5 | none | 0 |
| f71r | q10s1 +23 | q5s2 +6 | q9s1 +3 | 0 |
| f71v | q10s1 +27 | q9s1 +4 | q5s1 +3, q6s3 +3, q2s1 +1, q11s1 +1 | 0 |
| f72r1 | q10s1 +26 | q8s2 +4 | q1s2 +3 | 0 |
| f72r2 | q9s1 +25 | q8s2 +7 | q10s1 +3 | 0 |
| f72r3 | q9s1 +25, q8s2 +10 | q3s1 +5 | none | 0 |
| f72v1 | q9s1 +26 | q11s1 +9 | q10s1 +3, q8s2 +2, q6s1 +1, q5s2 +1 | 0 |
| f72v2 | q9s1 +29 | q10s1 +6, q11s1 +5 | none | 0 |
| f72v3 | q10s1 +29 | q8s2 +6 | q11s1 +3 | 0 |
| f73r | q9s1 +22 | q11s1 +5 | q10s1 +3, q6s3 +3, q8s2 +2, q5s1 +2 | 0 |
| f73v | q11s1 +29 | q8s2 +5 | q8s1 +3 | 0 |
| f75r | q9s1 +23 | q6s3 +9, q8s2 +4 | none | 0 |
| f75v | q5s2 +16 | q9s1 +7 | q8s2 +3 | 0 |
| f76r | q9s1 +21 | q6s3 +8, q13s1 +4 | none | 0 |
| f76v | q8s1 +21 | q9s1 +8, q8s2 +5 | none | 0 |
| f77r | q13s2 +28 | q13s1 +5 | q5s2 +3 | 0 |
| f77v | q13s2 +22 | q9s1 +8, q13s1 +4 | none | 0 |
| f78r | q13s2 +18 | q9s1 +4, q5s4 +5 | q8s1 +3, q10s1 +1, q4s3 +2 | 0 |
| f78v | q9s1 +19 | q13s1 +9 | q8s2 +1, q13s3 +2, q4s2 +2, q3s1 +1 | 0 |
| f79r | q13s2 +26 | q10s1 +8, q13s1 +4 | none | 0 |
| f79v | q13s2 +29 | q5s1 +9 | q11s1 +3 | 0 |
| f80r | q13s2 +21 | q9s1 +9 | q13s3 +3 | 0 |
| f80v | q13s5 +24 | none | q5s2 +1, q9s1 +3, q6s1 +2, q10s1 +2, q11s1 +2 | 0 |
| f81r | q13s5 +24 | q13s4 +4 | q3s1 +2, q11s1 +1 | 0 |
| f81v | q13s2 +24 | q8s2 +5 | q6s2 +2 | 0 |
| f82r | q13s5 +35 | q9s1 +5 | q8s1 +3 | 0 |
| f82v | q13s5 +29 | q13s2 +5 | q13s4 +1, q8s1 +2, q11s1 +1 | 0 |
| f83r | q13s3 +35 | q13s4 +5 | q8s2 +3 | 0 |
| f83v | q13s2 +32 | q13s5 +7 | q8s1 +3 | 0 |
| f84r | q13s2 +24 | q13s5 +5, q9s1 +5 | none | 0 |
| f84v | q13s1 +27 | none | q13s5 +1, q13s3 +1, q7s2 +1, q4s2 +2, q2s2 +2 | 0 |
| f85r1 | q13s2 +33, q11s1 +15 | q9s1 +7 | none | 0 |
| f85r2 | q13s5 +22 | q11s1 +5 | q13s4 +3 | 0 |
| f86v3 | q9s1 +29, q8s2 +10 | q14s1 +6 | none | 0 |
| f86v4 | q14s1 +34, q11s1 +11 | q6s3 +7 | none | 0 |
| f86v5 | q14s1 +39 | q9s1 +7, q13s2 +4 | none | 0 |
| f86v6 | q14s1 +33, q8s2 +13 | q11s1 +6 | none | 0 |
| f87r | q9s1 +24 | q14s1 +4, q10s1 +4 | q7s4 +1, q5s2 +1, q3s3 +1 | 0 |
| f87v | q14s1 +25 | q9s1 +6 | q1s3 +3 | 0 |
| f88r | q14s1 +23 | q10s1 +6 | q13s5 +3 | 0 |
| f88v | q14s1 +33 | q11s1 +8, q9s1 +4 | none | 0 |
| f89r1 | q14s1 +27 | q13s3 +5 | q8s2 +3 | 0 |
| f89r2 | q9s1 +29, q14s1 +11 | q3s4 +4 | none | 0 |
| f89v1 | q14s1 +24 | q15s2 +5 | q13s5 +2 | 0 |
| f89v2 | q9s1 +26 | q14s1 +5 | q3s1 +3 | 0 |
| f90r1 | q15s2 +20 | none | q14s1 +3, q7s1 +2 | 0 |
| f90r2 | q9s1 +12 | none | q8s1 +3, q13s3 +2, q8s2 +2, q7s3 +1 | 0 |
| f90v1 | q9s1 +25 | q15s2 +7 | q14s1 +2, q13s2 +1, q15s1 +1, q4s2 +1 | 0 |
| f90v2 | q14s1 +18 | q11s1 +6 | q1s1 +2, q4s2 +2, q3s2 +1 | 0 |
| f93r | q14s1 +19 | q9s1 +7 | q1s1 +3 | 0 |
| f93v | q14s1 +20 | q15s2 +6 | q1s3 +2, q8s1 +3, q3s1 +1, q1s1 +2 | 0 |
| f94r | q13s2 +16 | q11s1 +4 | q13s3 +2, q5s3 +2 | 0 |
| f94v | q14s1 +19 | q13s4 +4 | q8s1 +3 | 0 |
| f95r1 | q13s2 +20 | q5s1 +6 | q11s1 +2, q1s1 +2, q7s3 +2 | 0 |
| f95r2 | q5s2 +14 | none | q6s3 +1, q8s2 +3, q13s2 +1, q7s4 +2, q1s1 +1 | 0 |
| f95v1 | q14s1 +23 | q6s3 +5 | q6s4 +2 | 0 |
| f95v2 | q14s1 +16 | none | q13s1 +1, q4s3 +1 | 0 |
| f96r | q15s1 +19 | none | q15s2 +3, q14s1 +3, q17s2 +3, q4s4 +2, q17s1 +1 | 0 |
| f96v | q9s1 +25 | none | q8s1 +3, q13s2 +3, q13s3 +3 | 0 |
| f99r | q14s1 +30 | q11s1 +7, q15s2 +5 | none | 0 |
| f99v | q9s1 +30 | q15s2 +8, q11s1 +6 | none | 0 |
| f100r | q9s1 +21 | q14s1 +6, q8s1 +4 | none | 0 |
| f100v | q9s1 +21 | q11s1 +7, q17s1 +4 | none | 0 |
| f101r | q14s1 +28 | q15s2 +5 | q9s1 +3 | 0 |
| f101v | q9s1 +29 | q15s2 +8, q15s1 +4 | none | 0 |
| f102r1 | q15s2 +29, q14s1 +10 | q11s1 +4 | none | 0 |
| f102r2 | q19s2 +19 | q9s1 +7 | q7s3 +3 | 0 |
| f102v1 | q9s1 +23 | q14s1 +5 | q19s1 +2, q10s1 +1, q2s2 +2 | 0 |
| f102v2 | q9s1 +22 | q14s1 +7, q19s1 +4 | none | 0 |
| f103r | q14s1 +42, q8s2 +10 | q13s3 +6 | none | 0 |
| f103v | q14s1 +32 | q13s5 +7, q8s2 +5 | none | 0 |
| f104r | q14s1 +47, q11s1 +15 | q13s2 +5 | none | 0 |
| f104v | q14s1 +42, q13s2 +13 | q9s1 +8 | none | 0 |
| f105r | q14s1 +44, q19s1 +11 | q20s2 +6 | none | 0 |
| f105v | q14s1 +48, q20s2 +12 | q20s3 +8 | none | 0 |
| f106r | q14s1 +46, q20s2 +14 | q20s1 +4 | none | 0 |
| f106v | q14s1 +34, q20s3 +10 | q11s1 +4 | none | 0 |
| f107r | q20s2 +34, q11s1 +15 | q14s1 +6 | none | 0 |
| f107v | q9s1 +26, q13s2 +12 | q20s5 +6 | none | 0 |
| f108r | q20s2 +36, q8s2 +11 | q14s1 +6 | none | 0 |
| f108v | q20s2 +33, q14s1 +13 | q13s2 +6 | none | 0 |
| f111r | q20s6 +38 | q20s5 +9, q11s1 +7 | none | 0 |
| f111v | q20s6 +35, q13s5 +10 | q20s1 +4 | none | 0 |
| f112r | q14s1 +33 | q13s3 +8, q20s6 +5 | none | 0 |
| f112v | q20s6 +31, q14s1 +10 | q11s1 +5 | none | 0 |
| f113r | q14s1 +45, q20s2 +13 | q20s3 +6 | none | 0 |
| f113v | q20s6 +50, q20s4 +12 | q11s1 +5 | none | 0 |
| f114r | q20s5 +41, q20s2 +11 | q8s1 +8 | none | 0 |
| f114v | q14s1 +44, q20s3 +12 | q20s6 +6 | none | 0 |
| f115r | q20s4 +39 | q20s3 +9, q20s2 +5 | none | 0 |
| f115v | q20s4 +48, q20s3 +12 | q13s2 +6 | none | 0 |
RE: A One-Page Ledger Method for Generating Voynich-Like Text - Dunsel - 19-05-2026
(19-05-2026, 09:58 AM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. explains it.
Fascinating. I may have to devise a test for this!