(16-04-2024, 02:08 PM)proto57 wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.My use of assumption is not at all wrong, I am actually quoting you on this. "Assumption" and "combined are your own words, as is the entire explanation I relate. From your page, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , you wrote,
"The uncertainty in age for each folio is some 50-60 years, and in the case of fol.68 even spans two centuries due to the above-mentioned inversions of the calibration curve. These folios have been bound together into one volume centuries ago, and the book production process is likely to have taken considerably less time than these 50-60 years. Under this assumption, and in particular the obtained result that the dating of the folios is tightly clustered (as shown above), each sheet provides a measurement or observation of the MS creation."
Rich, you are just playing with words, and your text was not a quote of mine.
This time range of the C-14 samples has nothing to do with the question whether the MS is genuinly old or not.
Just to avoid that other readers get confused by this...
The assumption is that the MS was created well within someone's life span, which is completely reasonable, as it is the case for essentially all books that aren't obviously log books. This was COMBINED with the result of the four samples which confirmed that.
This assumption was not even made beforehand. It was only made after the result showed that this is clearly what happened.
Now the combining of the four samples can be described in words, not using formulas.
For one folio, the probability that the date is after 1450 may be 1%.
If we just had that one folio, then that would be our uncertainty.
However, we have three more folios, each with a similarly low percentage that the date is after 1450.
This means that we have even greater confidence that the book as a whole is from before 1450.
Given that the 95% range is still about 30 years, which is on a scale of a single person's adult life span, the creation of the MS well within several decades holds.
With respect to the question whether the MS is proven to be genuine, I would add "beyond reasonable doubt". While the forensic evidence is clearly the strongest, there is a lot more than that.