(05-06-2019, 04:56 AM)ReneZ wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As it stands, these word patterns and limited character combinations 'just happened'. In that sense, the theory is inadequate, even if it explains some other features.
Well, if there were enough constraints, the VMS could have "just happened" and we are left with the impossible task of explaining arbitrary choices. What didn't happen didn't happen, there does not have to be a reason for everything.
Quote:But there are more known features of the text that are not explained by the auto-copying process:
- the fact that Eva-f and Eva-p mainly (but not exclusively) appear on top lines of paragraphs.
- that Eva-m and Eva-g occur only at word ends, and the former mainly at line ends
- that paragraph-initial characters are from a small subset only
- that line-initial words are different and follow some rules that are not yet understood
Yes, logically, the existence of these rules and constraints (and there are more: the glyph correlations across word breaks as described in the recent paper by Emma May Smith & Marco Ponzi for example) make little sense in the hypothesis of an attempt to build a credible-looking but meaningless text and are unnecessarily sophisticated, especially those that are detectable only by frequency analysis.
Quote:Furthermore, the fact that similar words tend to appear near each other could be explained by other effects, for example:
- building up the 'code' vocabulary as the text is produced
- Friedman's suggestion of some kind of a synthetic language
- every word stands only for one character, so the words are meaningless but the text as a whole is not
My cipher allows 1) and 3) but not only one character per word, there could be zero, or more characters than glyphs (compression).
