25-04-2017, 03:44 PM
(25-04-2017, 03:05 PM)Torsten wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.On one side you say that within a section the words in the VMS are randomly used. On the other side you say that you accept that the VMS changes over time and that you accept the observation that similar words do co-occur throughout the script. If both statements are true it must be possible to demonstrate clear breaks between different sections of the manuscripts. Your graphs for page cluster show that no clear breaks between different sections exists (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). Therefore both statements can't be true at the same time.
You can't apply propositional logic. There's a huge amount of modality, probability, and fuzziness involved here. Things can be possibly true, probably true, or quite true.
Clustering is very much a black art. There are no clear breaks between contiguous clusters, and their differences are small, e.g. for blue and black herbal. I could have drawn the clusters differently, e.g. subdivided them or moved their boundaries slightly. Also, if there's randomness, you're going to get some overlap. What it might help elucidate, is the order in which the text was written.
There are places in the text where word frequencies do change abruptly between non-contiguous clusters, e.g. f26r, from green to red.
Similar words co-occur because they're frequent within certain pages clusters, e.g. the red herbal (Currier B) pages have a high frequency of words ending in edy.