***the statistics must vary with every single ms.***
No, I disagree strongly there, I can show that the numbers from many different ms show pinpointed statistics.
That is exactly what I am saying, for..I think 3 years now. (I will not discuss entropy again, that is an entirely different discussion.)
The main differences between texts using my stats are:
- the time period (1300 is different from 1400) but still you can see the used language clearly
- the exact language
- there is often 1 most frequent word in the top ten, that is the subject in the book. For example a name.
This is nothing special, there are (commercial) tools, that can tell for many languages what the % chance is, that the text is in that language.
For example it will say: 5% Modern English, 55% Middle English, 40% Vulgar Latin.
My suggestion for the VMS, is that the polyphonic characters in combination with some nulling and/or a start/and/or ending formula is used. The final ciphered polyphonic set will consist of 10 sets.
If that is true, that is enough to confuse any statistical tool.
No, I disagree strongly there, I can show that the numbers from many different ms show pinpointed statistics.
That is exactly what I am saying, for..I think 3 years now. (I will not discuss entropy again, that is an entirely different discussion.)
The main differences between texts using my stats are:
- the time period (1300 is different from 1400) but still you can see the used language clearly
- the exact language
- there is often 1 most frequent word in the top ten, that is the subject in the book. For example a name.
This is nothing special, there are (commercial) tools, that can tell for many languages what the % chance is, that the text is in that language.
For example it will say: 5% Modern English, 55% Middle English, 40% Vulgar Latin.
My suggestion for the VMS, is that the polyphonic characters in combination with some nulling and/or a start/and/or ending formula is used. The final ciphered polyphonic set will consist of 10 sets.
If that is true, that is enough to confuse any statistical tool.