+- 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: Triple convergence (/thread-761.html)
Triple convergence - R. Sale - 17-09-2016
So how can we interpret the validity of things that are found in the VMs? The validation is found in the text.
For example the triple convergence of interpretation applied to the fifth symbol in the 4 x 17 symbol sequence of VMs f 57v. In EVA transcription, they are o, l, d, r and v. And so the fifth symbol is 'v'. Not that the fifth symbol really is a 'v', if you actually look at it.
A person familiar with Greek letters might identify it as an upper case version of lambda. A person working with medieval mathematics might see the number seven. And supplementary both of those, there is an inverted version of the letter 'V'.
Is this coincidence? Three different interpretations for one simple symbol. Is there a way to establish validity of interpretation?
I believe there is something that goes a long way in that direction. And that is the use of positional confirmation.
Here are the examples:
1. 'Lambda' interpretation: Within the Greek alphabet, if symbol 5 might be lambda, symbol 1 might be omicron. The reading is right to left, which was permitted in Greek. And the spacing, with three symbols in between, is the same placement as in the Greek alphabet.
Note that position is a measurement not a subjective assessment of perceived similarity. It is a mathematical equality and therefore an objective fact. This is a positional confirmation.
So perhaps the lambda interpretation is correct. But look again.
2. 'Seven' interpretation: Within the realm of medieval mathematics, as evidenced on the skirts of Typus Arithmetica are the first few powers of '2' and '3'. Not only does the form of the number seven match with the form of symbol 5 of the VMs sequence, the number four is a match with symbol 2 of the sequence. There are two intervening spaces between symbol 2 and symbol 5. Just as there are two intervening spaces between numbers '4' and '7'. This is the same sort or positional confirmation as the first example.
3. 'Roman' interpretation: The Roman numeral five is "V". And VMs symbol 5 is a 'V' inverted. If this were a random sequence of symbols, the symbol could have been placed anywhere. Given that the interpretation and the placement are same, this is also a positional confirmation of interpretation.
In my book, this sort of triple convergence thing cannot pass as a coincidence or random concatenation of circumstance. And in an artifact of human manufacture, the only alternative is intentional creation.
This triple convergence shows how the choice of symbol position can be used to confirm subjective visual interpretations by means of measurable distance and relative location. The method of using positional confirmations has been used again on VMs You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (White Aries) as part of the Genoese Gambit and the tradition of the red galero.
.
RE: Triple convergence - R. Sale - 19-09-2016
So... Is there a problem here? Is this too simplistic? Where's the difficulty? Take the first two examples which are quite comparable. [4 x 17 Symbol Sequence of VMs f57v]
Symbol 5 has an alphabetic or numerical interpretation according to its use in the relevant system. Either interpretation is supported by the interpretation of a second symbol from that same relevant sequence . And it is further located in the VMs sequence at the same distance of separation as it is found in the relevant traditional symbol sequence - either Greek alphabet or medieval numerals.
Does it seem possible that this could be something accidental and unintentional? Could the person responsible for the origination of this construction have written what we see without knowing these various interpretations to start with? I think not. The construction is too complex to be accidental.
So here is a demonstration of traditional interpretations of VMs symbols that were presented in the text, with the interpretation verified by objective, positional evidence in the VMs text and no one cares to comment. Does someone disagree?
Does anyone have suggestions as to how this information might be useful? After all, we have a bit of an alphabetic sequence and also a bit of a numeric sequence. Can these sequences be extended? Might these sequences correspond to the wheels on a cipher disk? I've not had any luck with that.
What is the significance of 'five' inverted in the fifth position? What is the sixth symbol in the VMs 4 x 17 symbol sequence? A traditional interpretation might call Symbol 6 a quincunx. And, among other things, in astrology it represents a connection to the fifth house of the zodiac from the primary house. So what happens if we go to the VMs Zodiac and look at the first five houses? Another medieval puzzle, a challenge to historical recognition.
RE: Triple convergence - -JKP- - 19-09-2016
(R. Sale wrote:
...
What is the significance of 'five' inverted in the fifth position? What is the sixth symbol in the VMs 4 x 17 symbol sequence? A traditional interpretation might call Symbol 6 a quincunx. And, among other things, in astrology it represents a connection to the fifth house of the zodiac from the primary house. So what happens if we go to the VMs Zodiac and look at the first five houses? Another medieval puzzle, a challenge to historical recognition.
I don't think it's necessary to invert the fifth character to draw a direct parallel to Latin chars.
In the 4 x 17 sequence, the second letter and fifth letter are drawn like medieval Latin alphanumeric 4 and Latin alphanumeric 7.
The 15th character is based on the number 9 (we know it's a 9 by how it's used in the main text), so it's quite possible the third character is the number 8 (the figure-8 is badly drawn the first time, the writer started to write EVA-r (which was intended to be the fourth character not the third) and corrected it to a figure-8, but it's smoothly drawn in the subsequent three repetitions).
RE: Triple convergence - R. Sale - 20-09-2016
JKP,
Thanks for your comments. Obviously Greek and Latin were both alphanumeric systems, though not the same system. And while the old Latin system was still current in the European Middle Ages, I was not aware that the system of numerical symbols, of the type seen in the Typus Arithmetica illustration, had alphabetic interpretations.
The 4 x 17 Symbol Sequence appears to contain several symbols with strong visual similarities to the set of medieval numerals, such as 4 and 7 in my second example. And also 8 and 9, as you point out. Visual similarities are good, but in the realms of VMs investigation, are they conclusive? And the answer is: generally not.
So how could an interpretation be established that is more conclusive than that based on visual similarities (besides making an exact copy of a symbol or image)? And that is through the introduction of a second factor that is not based on visual similarities. The second factor is based on location not on form. It is not necessary to conclusively identify a particular symbol in order to establish and state its position in the sequence. And so it is simple to select any two symbols in a given sequence and measure the distance in between them. Measurement is an objective and independent fact.
So, the matter goes back to the attempt to establish validity of interpretation. In the example of 4 and 7, there is visual similarity and a proper positional relationship in the VMs sequence to match the positional relartonship in the traditional system - a comparison based on objective measurements. And that is an independent and a much more definitive comparison than visual similarity.
In the example of 8 and 9, there is visual similarity and nothing else (at present). Is there an independent positional factor that augments the visual aspect? I've not looked, so I can't say. It would certainly be interesting, if there were something more to be found.
In the effort to find validity of interpretation, this is what we have so far. Three separate, independent examples of interpretation based on visual similarity within three traditional symbol sequences. Each of which is also confirmed in its own system by objective measurement and proper location. All three examples make use of the fifth symbol in the VMs 4 x 17 Symbol Sequence.
From the complexity of this construction, it is my opinion that the construction is intentional. And being intentional, the construction has meaning and reason behind it. The intentions are those of the person who created the triple convergence. And this provides a few clues about the text's creator, as well as potential clues to a better understanding of the text itself.
The VMs contains examples of hidden information. This is one. Pairing and paired heraldry in the VMs Zodiac is another. There is a level of sophistication in the text and illustrations that apparently was intended to escape the eye of the casual observer. It is there because of the inviolable rule that whatever is in the hidden in the manuscript actually has to be on the pages. The evidence of validity is on the VMs pages: visual similarity *and* proper positioning. Together they establish a validity of interpretation that seems much more likely to be relevant to the author's potential purposes than an interpretation of something based on visual similarity alone.
RE: Triple convergence - Sam G - 20-09-2016
Well, it's kind of interesting. I'd guess that the Roman numeral interpretation is less likely to be coincidental than the other two, mainly because it's not clear how the lambda or seven interpretations fit in with the rest of the sequence. Now if you can use this theory of yours to explain something else about the sequence or determine what purpose it serves, that would be more impressive.
RE: Triple convergence - julian - 20-09-2016
(17-09-2016, 11:29 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.3. 'Roman' interpretation: The Roman numeral five is "V". And VMs symbol 5 is a 'V' inverted. If this were a random sequence of symbols, the symbol could have been placed anywhere. Given that the interpretation and the placement are same, this is also a positional confirmation of interpretation.
It could simply be coincidence, unless you were looking for a 5 in the fifth position specifically, which I don't think you were. As there are 17 glyphs in the sequence, any one of them could randomly look like the corresponding number, or Roman numeral(s), or an animal with that number of legs etc. etc.
RE: Triple convergence - R. Sale - 20-09-2016
I see it a little differently. The Roman example requires only one symbol to be in a certain location. The other two examples use two symbols and require a specific distance between them. I'll grant that it's hard to see the purpose. Using substitutions is too simple. However the examples themselves seem to be more complex and therefore less likely to result from random occurrence.
My intent is to point out what the text contains in the hope that discussion might lead to further insights.
RE: Triple convergence - julian - 20-09-2016
(20-09-2016, 09:56 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I see it a little differently. The Roman example requires only one symbol to be in a certain location. The other two examples use two symbols and require a specific distance between them. I'll grant that it's hard to see the purpose. Using substitutions is too simple. However the examples themselves seem to be more complex and therefore less likely to result from random occurrence.
My intent is to point out what the text contains in the hope that discussion might lead to further insights.
There are other sequences on other folios:
- f49v has several sequences, and the inverted v doesn't appear in the fifth position in any of them
- f66r has several sequences: none of the fifth positions show inverted v
- f75v (right hand margin) has a sequence whose fifth glyph is not inverted v
- f76r sequence: no inverted v in fifth position
Having said that, who knows? Perhaps the inverted v really does mean 5?
RE: Triple convergence - R. Sale - 21-09-2016
Julian,
Greetings. My previous reply was a response to what Sam G had said, and your first comment sort slipped in between.
As you point out, the possibility of coincidence is a valid consideration. Seventeen numbered cards laid out sequentially in random order will occasionally result in card number x landing in position x. It's unavoidable, even if it is random. And there it is. I'm sure there must be a mathematical equation that gives a specific percentage.
The consideration of coincidence is problematic. How do we establish validity if we can't eliminate coincidence? And we know that we can't eliminate coincidence, because coincidence is a fact.
And potentially there are some VMs investigators will look on the demonstration of coincidence in an area of research as the equivalent of pushing the 'EJECT' button. - - Don't want to hear that song no more.
So if it is only the Roman interpretation that is considered in isolation, then I would have to agree that it is a line of investigation that barely struggles out of the starting gate and falls flat. But such is not the case. This is a triple convergence of interpretation on a single symbol in the VMs 4 x 17 sequence. And as I said to Sam, I believe that the interpretations involved in the first two examples are more complex and therefore they are more improbable to occur coincidentally. But again, if we go back to randomly deal the the cards, this structure will occur eventually.
But this is a triple convergence, a threefold coincidence. I don't know where you might consider vanishingly small to be irrelevant, but I passed it a while back. Besides, the mathematical calculation of coincidental possibility applies to random systems and the VMs is not a random system. Humans have been show to be incapable of being random.
Where coincidence has, for all practical purposes, been eliminated, what is the alternative? The VMs is an artifact of human creation. All three interpretations are verified by well-known traditions prior to the parchment dates. And the simultaneous existence of three interpretations is ostensibly presented because a single example on its own is much easier to dismiss. While the combination of three is a better guarantee of validity. And validity - and a method to determine validity - is what we are looking for. Having visual similarity is necessary. Having positional confirmation is a significant, independent factor in the search for validity of interpretation. Having the combination of visual similarity and positional confirmation in a certain part of the VMs indicates to me an area where further investigation could be useful. Having all three examples together strongly indicates an intentional construction. The triple convergence is there, but why? 'Why' is a question still lacking a viable answer. However that is not the same as labeling the matter as coincidental and dismissing the whole symbol investigation for a lack of validated interpretation.