Proposed Manuscript Chronology

[Mauro]

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in my stability testing. You can play around with the sorting mechanisms, and view the individual page/bifolia level variation across all the runs from the above charts.

I believe this ordering is more robust than my original chronology, and it better communicates the uncertainty and ambiguity around specific page/bifolia ordering. 

I hope this level of testing and information around the stability helps to improve confidence in the overall broad chronology, while explicitly showing sections that exhibit more ambiguity or uncertainty.

This is interesting and I think it's an improvement over You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

I have compared your last results with @LisaFaginDavis & Layfield' work (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). They attempted the reconstruction of the sequence of Quire 13 (Balneological) and Quire 20 (Stars), separately.

For Quire 20 your sequence is identical to Lisa's (105, 104, 106, 107, 108, 103). For Quire 13 your sequence is almost exactly the reverse of Lisa's (79, 76, 78, 75, 77 vs. 77, 78, 75, 76, 79) with only 75 switching place with 78, the reversing not being an issue. This is quite promising I think.

Also You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. moved closer to the start of the sequence, and I agree with @Koen (iirc??) that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. does indeed look like to be the first bifolio. So this is good too, even if ideally I'd expect it to be at the very top. This may have to do with what reported by @LisaFaginDavis, iirc that the Herbal? sections had too similar scores with their method to reliably attempt to reconstruct their inner sequence.

What I find surprising is that the entire Bio block (Quire 13/M) sits after You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in your list, when You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. looks, by the same heuristics as for f1r, to be the last folio. It can be explained (a later appendix?) but surprises me nonetheless.

Do you plan to use the updated 'chronology' on eo777.github in the future? That'd be cool! Thanks.

[npcompl33t]

Do you plan to use the updated 'chronology' on eo777.github in the future? That'd be cool! Thanks.

That is super interesting, I appreciate the comparison to layfield and Davis. The fact one of their sections are reversed is interesting as well, because I believe it can be hard to determine the directionality of some of both methods, as you brought up earlier. 


And yes, I’m going to work on updating it to the newer method. There still is a bit of ambiguity, for example with the ordering of 3a vs 3b. So it may not be perfect or may be hard to capture everything in a single ordering.

[npcompl33t]

All of the pages have been updated with the newer chronology derived from the robust stability analysis. 

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.contains the newer more robust chronology, along with the variants produced by alternative ordering in the ambiguous sections.

The You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. on the voynich-clusters site now defaults to the new chronology, there is a selector to view alternative paths and the old initial proposal.

The You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. has also been updated and will use the newer bifolio and page path values. 

The new You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in my opinion looks much more continuous than the old version.