20-04-2017, 08:04 PM
Date 16th century not a misprint. In the article is written several times 16 in different contexts.
It is unclear what tools were used to analyze statistics (were their own new ones used?). It is strange that in the article the number of characters in the alphabet EVA is = 22, as in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , (even w = ^).
Then dropped two rare symbols to get the number 20 (the number of consonants in many European languages). And in fact threw out 5 characters of EVA. (The authors believe that the vowels are omitted in MV)
For the analysis of statistics took texts in modern European languages.
In calculating the Hearst distribution exponents (the distance between identical symbols), the possibility iii, i + ii, eee, e + ee was not even considered.
My conclusion is that there are many clever formulas, and in fact only one of the theories, which does not advance us to deciphering.
It is unclear what tools were used to analyze statistics (were their own new ones used?). It is strange that in the article the number of characters in the alphabet EVA is = 22, as in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , (even w = ^).
Then dropped two rare symbols to get the number 20 (the number of consonants in many European languages). And in fact threw out 5 characters of EVA. (The authors believe that the vowels are omitted in MV)
For the analysis of statistics took texts in modern European languages.
In calculating the Hearst distribution exponents (the distance between identical symbols), the possibility iii, i + ii, eee, e + ee was not even considered.
My conclusion is that there are many clever formulas, and in fact only one of the theories, which does not advance us to deciphering.