Quote:Either way, I do understand why you'd not want to include the labels. They may behave differently than the text, and either way uncertainties like the one you mention certainly don't help.
On the contrary, my work is supposed to be heavily based on labels, because they are likely to:
- represent distinct words or phrases (as opposed to the main text which we don't know if it's shuffled or otherwise manipulated)
- represent sets of "equal rank" notions - which is the key property that makes them so valuable.
The most valuable set is that of the Voynich "stars" (f68r1 and f68r2). It is a) complete in itself and b) no labels do repeat within it.
By the way, 47% of all Voynich "star" labels are unique vords. That's what makes the set complete - it makes no sense to mention "useless" (from the perspective of the contents of the VMS) "stars" in the set but for the sake of the completeness of the latter.
(29-03-2016, 06:09 PM)Wladimir D wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Anton. This example explains my assumption that these labels are the names of the ingredients. From the first and third plants must take in recipe two ingredient .
I also think of that in a similar way. But for the list of possible ingredients (root, leaf, seed, stem, petal... what else? ) the number of these labels is too large, is not it?
And these labels do not repeat across the pharma folios, if I am not mistaken. Is it probable that from each plant a different ingredient must be taken?