16-04-2017, 10:44 PM
(16-04-2017, 02:07 PM)Davidsch wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@Nick, the candidate groups that you are proposing are not necessary wrong, but the difficulty is the contents of that grouplist.
I made a comparison of the behavior of letters & 2-grams & 3-grams and the outcome is that we can probably form groups, but they are of unequal length and form.
I have now a very nice frequency of the members of these groups. I know from attempts before that comparing them with all the freq. I have of all other languages (new & old) will be fruitless. Let's assume I will not even try that.
>>At the end of all this, (a) there should be a single model, not two or more; and (b) the outbound transition probabilities from each node in the best-fit model should be determined as strongly as possible by the context itself, not by the preceding context.
What do you suggest to do with the "model" now?
The point of listing so many *candidates* is that they could possibly (but not necessarily) be nodes within a larger state machine, but it would take someone writing a clever programme to assess which particular permutation of candidates to "vote up" to give the most uniform single state machine (i.e. the state machine most free of context-sensitive exit statistics).
I don't believe you have (or anyone else has) tried this because I've only just formulated in words the metric I think will work. :-)
I honestly believe that getting to a really effective state machine for Voynichese will open our eyes to what's going on there. This should particularly be true for different sections of the text, because it may well help us to see how to map A pages onto B pages in a very fine-grained way. It would also help us build an understanding of how Voynichese is genuinely built up, which would be a nice position to get to after all these years of trying. :-)