20-09-2016, 08:07 PM
JKP,
Thanks for your comments. Obviously Greek and Latin were both alphanumeric systems, though not the same system. And while the old Latin system was still current in the European Middle Ages, I was not aware that the system of numerical symbols, of the type seen in the Typus Arithmetica illustration, had alphabetic interpretations.
The 4 x 17 Symbol Sequence appears to contain several symbols with strong visual similarities to the set of medieval numerals, such as 4 and 7 in my second example. And also 8 and 9, as you point out. Visual similarities are good, but in the realms of VMs investigation, are they conclusive? And the answer is: generally not.
So how could an interpretation be established that is more conclusive than that based on visual similarities (besides making an exact copy of a symbol or image)? And that is through the introduction of a second factor that is not based on visual similarities. The second factor is based on location not on form. It is not necessary to conclusively identify a particular symbol in order to establish and state its position in the sequence. And so it is simple to select any two symbols in a given sequence and measure the distance in between them. Measurement is an objective and independent fact.
So, the matter goes back to the attempt to establish validity of interpretation. In the example of 4 and 7, there is visual similarity and a proper positional relationship in the VMs sequence to match the positional relartonship in the traditional system - a comparison based on objective measurements. And that is an independent and a much more definitive comparison than visual similarity.
In the example of 8 and 9, there is visual similarity and nothing else (at present). Is there an independent positional factor that augments the visual aspect? I've not looked, so I can't say. It would certainly be interesting, if there were something more to be found.
In the effort to find validity of interpretation, this is what we have so far. Three separate, independent examples of interpretation based on visual similarity within three traditional symbol sequences. Each of which is also confirmed in its own system by objective measurement and proper location. All three examples make use of the fifth symbol in the VMs 4 x 17 Symbol Sequence.
From the complexity of this construction, it is my opinion that the construction is intentional. And being intentional, the construction has meaning and reason behind it. The intentions are those of the person who created the triple convergence. And this provides a few clues about the text's creator, as well as potential clues to a better understanding of the text itself.
The VMs contains examples of hidden information. This is one. Pairing and paired heraldry in the VMs Zodiac is another. There is a level of sophistication in the text and illustrations that apparently was intended to escape the eye of the casual observer. It is there because of the inviolable rule that whatever is in the hidden in the manuscript actually has to be on the pages. The evidence of validity is on the VMs pages: visual similarity *and* proper positioning. Together they establish a validity of interpretation that seems much more likely to be relevant to the author's potential purposes than an interpretation of something based on visual similarity alone.
Thanks for your comments. Obviously Greek and Latin were both alphanumeric systems, though not the same system. And while the old Latin system was still current in the European Middle Ages, I was not aware that the system of numerical symbols, of the type seen in the Typus Arithmetica illustration, had alphabetic interpretations.
The 4 x 17 Symbol Sequence appears to contain several symbols with strong visual similarities to the set of medieval numerals, such as 4 and 7 in my second example. And also 8 and 9, as you point out. Visual similarities are good, but in the realms of VMs investigation, are they conclusive? And the answer is: generally not.
So how could an interpretation be established that is more conclusive than that based on visual similarities (besides making an exact copy of a symbol or image)? And that is through the introduction of a second factor that is not based on visual similarities. The second factor is based on location not on form. It is not necessary to conclusively identify a particular symbol in order to establish and state its position in the sequence. And so it is simple to select any two symbols in a given sequence and measure the distance in between them. Measurement is an objective and independent fact.
So, the matter goes back to the attempt to establish validity of interpretation. In the example of 4 and 7, there is visual similarity and a proper positional relationship in the VMs sequence to match the positional relartonship in the traditional system - a comparison based on objective measurements. And that is an independent and a much more definitive comparison than visual similarity.
In the example of 8 and 9, there is visual similarity and nothing else (at present). Is there an independent positional factor that augments the visual aspect? I've not looked, so I can't say. It would certainly be interesting, if there were something more to be found.
In the effort to find validity of interpretation, this is what we have so far. Three separate, independent examples of interpretation based on visual similarity within three traditional symbol sequences. Each of which is also confirmed in its own system by objective measurement and proper location. All three examples make use of the fifth symbol in the VMs 4 x 17 Symbol Sequence.
From the complexity of this construction, it is my opinion that the construction is intentional. And being intentional, the construction has meaning and reason behind it. The intentions are those of the person who created the triple convergence. And this provides a few clues about the text's creator, as well as potential clues to a better understanding of the text itself.
The VMs contains examples of hidden information. This is one. Pairing and paired heraldry in the VMs Zodiac is another. There is a level of sophistication in the text and illustrations that apparently was intended to escape the eye of the casual observer. It is there because of the inviolable rule that whatever is in the hidden in the manuscript actually has to be on the pages. The evidence of validity is on the VMs pages: visual similarity *and* proper positioning. Together they establish a validity of interpretation that seems much more likely to be relevant to the author's potential purposes than an interpretation of something based on visual similarity alone.