There is an unpublished paper about the VMS: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The paper from William Merrill and Eli Baum is available at William Merrils Homepage You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
The authors used word vectors to visualize voynich words: "The idea behind this approach is to encode each word as a highdimensional vector of real numbers such that similar words have similar vector representations."
The graphs illustrate that words with morphological similarity do encode similar word vectors (appear in the same context): "A variety of presumptive affixes are very apparent: [qol] vs [ol] vs [sol], for example. We can also see that certain letters are closely related and perhaps interchangeable with others. It is important to remember that these vectors were computed based on the word’s context; the fact that [qolchedy] aligns with [olchedy] suggests that they appear in similar syntactic (or even semantic) positions and not just that they have similar spellings" (Merrill & Baum).
The authors conclude: "While our morphological and topical analyses picked up on structural properties of suffixes and important words in the text, this does not necessarily mean that the text is written in a natural language. Formal language theory tells us that many sequences of structured text can be described by a grammar. Therefore, it is always possible that the properties our embeddings associate with specific suffixes or folia reflect non-natural-language structures or gibberish" (Merrill & Baum).
The paper from William Merrill and Eli Baum is available at William Merrils Homepage You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
The authors used word vectors to visualize voynich words: "The idea behind this approach is to encode each word as a highdimensional vector of real numbers such that similar words have similar vector representations."
The graphs illustrate that words with morphological similarity do encode similar word vectors (appear in the same context): "A variety of presumptive affixes are very apparent: [qol] vs [ol] vs [sol], for example. We can also see that certain letters are closely related and perhaps interchangeable with others. It is important to remember that these vectors were computed based on the word’s context; the fact that [qolchedy] aligns with [olchedy] suggests that they appear in similar syntactic (or even semantic) positions and not just that they have similar spellings" (Merrill & Baum).
The authors conclude: "While our morphological and topical analyses picked up on structural properties of suffixes and important words in the text, this does not necessarily mean that the text is written in a natural language. Formal language theory tells us that many sequences of structured text can be described by a grammar. Therefore, it is always possible that the properties our embeddings associate with specific suffixes or folia reflect non-natural-language structures or gibberish" (Merrill & Baum).
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)