12-09-2016, 11:02 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-09-2016, 04:03 PM by MarcoP.
Edit Reason: typo
)
(12-09-2016, 10:37 AM)Davidsch wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Marco, problem is that you used the TT transcription. This excludes the Rosette page. If you need it, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
If you use that as well , you get some different values, that is why i did not compare your list with mine.
If i have some additional time i will publish on that page (scroll down) the unique & compared words compared to the whole text and compared to specific other pages.
Thank you, David! I agree that including the Rosettes page might be interesting and I am sure the results will be different (given that the Rosettes have a huge number of labels).
In any case, it would be interesting if we could find a way of comparing our results.
(12-09-2016, 10:37 AM)Davidsch wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(11-09-2016, 12:35 PM)ReneZ wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
One has to keep in mind that the list of labels in the MS do not follow Zipf's law at all. While the label words aren't exactly unique, they are "almost unique". Among the labels, there are only few repetitions.
The label words *could* be repetitions of words in the main text, after the text was written with arbitrary space insertion, but then one should not expect such a flat word frequency distribution in the labels.
This conclusion is wrong with respect to the basic stemming of the words, here considered as labels, change as they become a noun or label.
I wrote this before: the "grammatical case" is in effect when we look at the words. The consequences are that only the stem remains the same.
David, these last sentences are not clear to me: I am afraid you have been too brief. Which conclusion is wrong and why?
Thank you for your kind words, Thomas!
Actually, I was not so much fishing for compliments -but they are welcome
- as trying to stress that the value of ideas depends on their capability of explaining (and predicting) evidence. Your unargumented dismissal of new evidence sounded strange because what I previously read from you seems a serious attempt to be scientific. I am glad to know that we have no personal issues and that we can see together if labels and spaces can help us move forward


![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)