+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Voynich Talk (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-6.html)
+--- Thread: Paper on arxiv.org - A. Ulyanenkov - 2016 (/thread-3209.html)
Pages:
1
2
Paper on arxiv.org - A. Ulyanenkov - 2016 - -JKP- - 16-05-2020
Alexander G. Ulyanenkov 2016 paper on arxiv.org (PDF format):
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
RE: Paper on arxiv.org - A. Ulyanenkov - 2016 - Koen G - 16-05-2020
Quote:Abstract: The Voynich manuscript (VMS) is the book dated as
15th - 16th century, written using specific and smart coding
methods. This article describes the methods how it was
analyzed and how coding keys were found. It is also shows the
VMS author’s method of coding.
Sometimes reading the abstract is really enough...
RE: Paper on arxiv.org - A. Ulyanenkov - 2016 - -JKP- - 16-05-2020
When I posted the notice I didn't comment because it was one of those papers where I was just sighing and shaking my head.
RE: Paper on arxiv.org - A. Ulyanenkov - 2016 - Wladimir D - 16-05-2020
In my opinion, his work on 3 queens deserves attention. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
RE: Paper on arxiv.org - A. Ulyanenkov - 2016 - DONJCH - 16-05-2020
Okay so the first and second queens are both at 3 o'clock on the inner ring.
How does that translate into the 10th and the 19th?
RE: Paper on arxiv.org - A. Ulyanenkov - 2016 - Anton - 16-05-2020
I think this article was already discussed here in the past.
RE: Paper on arxiv.org - A. Ulyanenkov - 2016 - -JKP- - 16-05-2020
I did a search for "Ulyanenkov" and nothing came up so I thought it might not have been posted.
RE: Paper on arxiv.org - A. Ulyanenkov - 2016 - Anton - 16-05-2020
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
RE: Paper on arxiv.org - A. Ulyanenkov - 2016 - Searcher - 16-05-2020
I remember that I read some of the posts with his theories somewere, but I'm not sure whether I read his deciphering. And not his prologue or dating bothers me too much, I'm just wondering to this conclusion:
Quote:Вот что, конкретно вы, ожидаете от расшифровки? Сразу вас огорчу. Это унылая алхимическая фармакопея, если говорить об основном тексте. Сплошной пошаговый рецепт создания красного порошка, красной тинктуры или, переводя на современный русский – философского камня (там, кстати, несколько его рецептов). Из фантастических ингредиентов, о существовании которых сегодня можно узнать только благодаря фантазиям автора.Quoted from Ulyanenkov's post You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Почему я не перевожу этот манускрипт полностью?
Причина первая и главная – не интересно. Нудно, скучно и никому пользы не принесет. А времени требует очень много.
Вторая причина – я не хочу, чтобы кто-нибудь попытался повторить сей рецепт. Я перевёл по нескольку страниц из каждого раздела и понял, что сие занятие может навредить. Тем более, там, как и в любой старинной фармакопее, много того, что может быть однозначно опасным для здоровья. Лично мне это совершенно не нужно. Не хочу даже знать. Это алхимия и это архаика того времени, когда люди не имели представлений об ядовитых свойствах, например, ртути и свинца.
Translation:
What exactly do you expect from decryption? Immediately upset you. This is a dull alchemical pharmacopoeia, talking about the main text. A continuous step-by-step recipe for creating red powder, red tincture, or, translating into modern Russian, a philosopher's stone (there are, by the way, several of his recipes). From the fantastic ingredients, the existence of which can only be found out today thanks to the fantasies of the author.
Why am I not translating this manuscript completely?
The first and foremost reason is not interesting. Tedious, boring and will not bring any benefit to anyone. And it takes a lot of time.
The second reason is that I don’t want anyone to try to repeat this recipe. I translated several pages from each section and realized that this activity could do much harm. Moreover, there, as in any ancient pharmacopeia, there are many things that can be uniquely hazardous to health. Personally, I do not need this at all. I don’t even want to know. This is alchemy and this archaic of the time when people had no idea about toxic properties, for example, mercury and lead.
I immediately had a question: What, then, did you expect from this manuscript?
RE: Paper on arxiv.org - A. Ulyanenkov - 2016 - Ruby Novacna - 17-05-2020
Thanks Yulia for the link. The author says that Bax and Zandbergen wrote an article together?