The Voynich Ninja
Theorems on letters - Printable Version

+- 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: Theorems on letters (/thread-2141.html)

Pages: 1 2


Theorems on letters - Davidsch - 14-10-2017

DS Theorem one on 13.10.2017

Any translation attempt that includes the EVA letter [P] or the EVA letter [F] and 
converts it directly in any other character or group of characters of another language, is wrong.


That being posed, the first word on f1r can not start with the EVA letter [P] being translated into a Latin P.

DS Theorem two. 14.10.2017:     The Eva letter [P] and Eva letter [F] are a signalling letter.


RE: Theorems on letters - Anton - 14-10-2017

Quote:The Eva letter [P] and Eva letter [F] are a signalling letter.

Do you mean literally "letter" or rather "operator? The point is that there is that "gallows coverage" which strongly suggests that p, f and sometimes t serve as operators of some kind.


RE: Theorems on letters - ReneZ - 14-10-2017

These two theorems are of very different nature.

The first is a logical consequence of the statistics. It is a valid deduction. It says what F and P cannot be.

The second is speculation.
It says what you think that F and P are, but in reality there are other possibilities.


RE: Theorems on letters - Emma May Smith - 14-10-2017

(14-10-2017, 01:44 PM)Davidsch Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.DS Theorem one on 13.10.2017

Any translation attempt that includes the EVA letter [P] or the EVA letter [F] and 
converts it directly in any other character or group of characters of another language, is wrong.


That being posed, the first word on f1r can not start with the EVA letter [P] being translated into a Latin P.

DS Theorem two. 14.10.2017:     The Eva letter [P] and Eva letter [F] are a signalling letter.

Theorem One, as stated, isn't clear and seems contradicted (at least in part) by Theorem Two, though I agree with Rene that the first and second have different natures. I think the problem is that the terminology involved is unclear.

Now, any solution which sees the script as a code, cipher, or essentially meaningless isn't concerned by this theorem. Only those which posit a direct linguistic value for each of the script's characters have to answer. For these theories, each character should have a value which can be described in linguistic terms. These values will or should be mostly phonetic in nature, though maybe not exclusively.

Because of this, we can say that [f, p] cannot have values which are both phonemic and exclusive: whichever phonemes they represent must be represented by other characters also, and whatever difference they indicate must be non-phonemic. This is because of their restriction to certain parts of the text, which is seemingly unlinguistic, but also the reasonable assumption that they indicate some difference in value due to their difference in shape. However, they can have a direct phonemic value, so long as it is shared with another character. In short, they are variant characters, though for what reason is unknown, and this unknown attribute is, I guess, what you referring to by saying that it is a 'signalling letter'.

But, the position of [f, p] at the beginning of a paragraph--quite apart from their usual restriction to first lines--also poses the question whether they have any phonemic value in those positions. I think it is quite reasonable that many do not. Yet we should be aware that [t] occurs more often than it should at the start of lines which are not paragraph initial, as well as occurring commonly at the start of paragraphs. Given that [p] is most similar to [t] in shape, it might be that at least some occurrences of paragraph initial [p] are genuine due to the interaction of both 1) first line, and 2) line start position.


RE: Theorems on letters - Anton - 14-10-2017

A theorem is something that can be logically deduced from pre-existing foundation - other theorems and/or something that is just postulated. This given, I presume Davidsch is going to discuss the proof of the theorems that he proposes?!


RE: Theorems on letters - Davidsch - 16-10-2017

I hesitate very much in discussing this, because there are so much arguments before and against it, 
and it will take a vast amount of time and finally there is no end in such a discussion.

Although I like reading the con's nevertheless. (full pro's are very rare on the Internet).

The idea behind publishing theorems is that some of my conclusions are known,
and when I've finished a total theory (this will take quite a while, perhaps a year or more from this point forward, research and collecting proof slurps time),
it will not come as a total surprise.


RE: Theorems on letters - Anton - 16-10-2017

For the sake of clarity it would be good if, when publishing proposed theorems, you make a note of whether they are simply proposals (which you do not know yet how to prove or whether they can be proved at all) or they have been already proved but you prefer to not disclose the proof yet.


RE: Theorems on letters - Davidsch - 16-10-2017

I can also publish them on my own site and not here, if you wish,
but the fact that I will not elaborate on it, as explained why,
does not change the fact that they are my theorems.

Would be nice if you respect that.

I was planning to post a whole bunch of theorems, 
in which one can see the natural flow and hopefully some logic.

If there is a rule that say I can not post my theorems here or call them so,
and I am obliged to prove them to anyone for a particular time period,
please let me know.

(16-10-2017, 01:59 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.For the sake of clarity it would be good if, when publishing proposed theorems, you make a note of whether they are simply proposals (which you do not know yet how to prove or whether they can be proved at all) or they have been already proved but you prefer to not disclose the proof yet.


Proving anything is the most difficult task one can ask from anyone in general,
in this context perhaps impossible.

With this pedantic comment, telling me what I posted and how to call it (proposal? no!),
is the same as saying to me to shut up. Which I will at this point, because admin's always have the last word.


RE: Theorems on letters - Koen G - 16-10-2017

I don't get this. So you take some frequently mentioned facts about the manuscript, phrase them in a way that makes little sense and call them your theorems? 


RE: Theorems on letters - Anton - 16-10-2017

,Davidsch, I'm afraid I don't get your point neither. This forum is a discussion board, so if you'd like to post something but would not like that to be discussed, this forum probably is not the optimal place for that - not because you are not welcome to post Voynich considerations, but because we can't (and have no reasons to) prohibit those being discussed by others.

Quote:I can also publish them on my own site and not here, if you wish,
but the fact that I will not elaborate on it, as explained why,
does not change the fact that they are my theorems.

Would be nice if you respect that.

I have no wishes whatsoever in this relation, and even if I had, this would not prevent you to publish them wherever you want. I could not find where I showed any doubt in that these propositions are yours. What I clearly asked is whether those are theorems or postulates, which is not clear from your subject post because you provided no proof, and, further, if theorems, then if any proof thereof is available at all. I can recognize no disrespect in that, just natural scientific discourse. When one puts forward a theorem, he is usually asked whether proof is available, and theorems as such are statements to be proved.

Quote:If there is a rule that say I can not post my theorems here or call them so, and I am obliged to prove them to anyone for a particular time period, please let me know.

There is no such rule that you cannot post your "theorems" here, neither you are obliged to prove them or call them whatsoever. One can call a horse a cat, that's not prohibited by any rules, that only looks strange and not very appropriate in a structured discussion. May it be possible that you do not understand what a "theorem" is? A theorem is a statement to be proved based on logically preceding statements, be that other theorems or postulates (axioms). So when one calls something a "theorem", the first and natural question is whether the statement has been proved or has been not.

Quote:Proving anything is the most difficult task one can ask from anyone in general,

in this context perhaps impossible.

Proving theorems is not always simple, some theorems take centuries to be proven. But if it is impossible to prove a statement, it should not be called a theorem, rather a hypothesis or postulate (depending on the context).

Quote:With this pedantic comment, telling me what I posted and how to call it (proposal? no!),

is the same as saying to me to shut up. Which I will at this point, because admin's always have the last word.

This was not "telling" but "asking", and was clearly intended to ask you to clarify your posting (which you opted not to do), not to "shut up". Please don't distort others' messages, this is unethical at least.