14-05-2019, 07:13 PM
(This post was last modified: 14-05-2019, 07:16 PM by Mark Knowles.)
Anton: I suppose the question I would pose then is if we can say on that basis in your opinion what any Voynich shape is
So do you think the "4" in the "4o" is really a "4"?
Do you think the "o" is really an "o"?
Do you think the "a" is really an "a"?
In short do you think we can say anything about how any individual Voynich glyph/symbol/character looks?
If I draw a picture of a triangle is it reasonable for someone to look at it and say that it is a picture of a triangle or can we say nothing about how any drawn image looks?
If we can't say what a symbol looks like how can we possibly say if two symbols are the same or different?
How can we justify the identification of any Voynich glyphs at all?
To me all these are doable and from a theoretical point of view I think it is worthwhile to refer to image recognition, that is of course not to say that there aren't other clues as well.
Anton: The question of difference is an interesting one as to how we measure the amount of natural drawing variation of the author.
So do you think the "4" in the "4o" is really a "4"?
Do you think the "o" is really an "o"?
Do you think the "a" is really an "a"?
In short do you think we can say anything about how any individual Voynich glyph/symbol/character looks?
If I draw a picture of a triangle is it reasonable for someone to look at it and say that it is a picture of a triangle or can we say nothing about how any drawn image looks?
If we can't say what a symbol looks like how can we possibly say if two symbols are the same or different?
How can we justify the identification of any Voynich glyphs at all?
To me all these are doable and from a theoretical point of view I think it is worthwhile to refer to image recognition, that is of course not to say that there aren't other clues as well.
Anton: The question of difference is an interesting one as to how we measure the amount of natural drawing variation of the author.