04-04-2022, 07:44 PM
Three interpretations for EVA v are lambda, medieval numeral '7' and Roman numeral '5' in the 4 x17 symbol sequence of VMs f57v.
How can the results of any analysis be correctly interpreted with so many possible variants? The answer is through demonstration. Does the output of the chosen methodology produce a reasonable and viable result? Does the translation make sense? And are the results independently reproduceable?
Choice of language is a choice of methodology. It is only one side of the investigative dichotomy. The other part is the 'subject of investigation'. And for the VMs, while statistics are potentially helpful, it is also necessary to look at specific segments of the VMs text.
In the VMs, perhaps it is possible to assign a certain special quality to the circular texts. It's the last place someone would attempt to interpret the written text. The plants, the recipes and all that is investigated first. Perhaps circular texts are significant in another way. Perhaps some of them have been selected. Some of them are clearly marked with "Stolfi's" markers. And one of the markers connects to historical heraldry despite some intentional ambiguity. There is a set of different structural affirmations that supports this interpretation.
Among the examples of circular text, there are those that are marked and therefore might be more significant than others. This is an area where more light needs to shine. If there is a need to demonstrate the validity of a particular methodology, let it at least take into consideration the self-designated, circular text segments that have the potential to produce more significant results.
How can the results of any analysis be correctly interpreted with so many possible variants? The answer is through demonstration. Does the output of the chosen methodology produce a reasonable and viable result? Does the translation make sense? And are the results independently reproduceable?
Choice of language is a choice of methodology. It is only one side of the investigative dichotomy. The other part is the 'subject of investigation'. And for the VMs, while statistics are potentially helpful, it is also necessary to look at specific segments of the VMs text.
In the VMs, perhaps it is possible to assign a certain special quality to the circular texts. It's the last place someone would attempt to interpret the written text. The plants, the recipes and all that is investigated first. Perhaps circular texts are significant in another way. Perhaps some of them have been selected. Some of them are clearly marked with "Stolfi's" markers. And one of the markers connects to historical heraldry despite some intentional ambiguity. There is a set of different structural affirmations that supports this interpretation.
Among the examples of circular text, there are those that are marked and therefore might be more significant than others. This is an area where more light needs to shine. If there is a need to demonstrate the validity of a particular methodology, let it at least take into consideration the self-designated, circular text segments that have the potential to produce more significant results.