Folio, Quire and Section Word Correlation

[oshfdk]

I'm not super convinced that the differing output based on the "hand" writing would contradict the idea...

I'm not sure I understand what exactly "the idea" is. Sorry, I can be quite slow when it comes to understanding various concepts 

If you don't mind, could you explain in more details the following:

Can we establish correlation between folios and sections based on the number of words shared.

Is it mainly about the correlation between folios and folios, between sections and sections or correlation between sections and folios (as in "this page correlates with balneology, etc")?

It helps us isolate sections to work on, there is a lot of text in the manuscript and reducing the attack surface can help.

I guess the sections (if you are referring to herbal, balneology, etc) are more or less self evident in the MS?

We can also use this to validate folio and quire order, for example I've always been confused by location of quire 19 and suspected it belonged somewhere else, but looking at its position on the sheet it shares the same correlations as its neighbors, the bathing section and the recipe section, meaning it likely belongs where it is.

To me this is not very obvious from the chart. Unless I'm reading it wrong, it correlates a bit with balneology and with a number of herbal pages, but doesn't correlate particularly well with the end section.

Then I'm lost completely, because I don't understand how the following is related to the chart of correlations 

The current status of the "is it a cipher or not" debate boils down to either "no its the product of a generative method that produces pseudo-language" or "yes but we don't know how or what" or "something else". If this research shows anything it shows that the manuscript text shares a logical correlation to its pictographic themes and even the physical structure (the quires). If this is pseud-language then it follows themes and relations. Also, I don't think these concepts are mutually exclusive, I think you absolutely can use a generative method as an encoding or enciphering mechanism. If I was to state it in a simple way it would be, "you hide a needle in a bunch of haystacks, but you're going to need to manufacture those haystacks". I think the generative mechanism takes words as a seed and produces pseudo-language as an obscured output. I also think there is a sort of pun going on here, it's not just the text being generated, the characters and plants are too, hence why we see so many unrecognisable plants.

The plants are gathered, cut up thrown into a device and turned into something new, like the words.

I think this is a cool idea (that plants and figures are generated according to some mechanistic process). It is reminiscent of various theories that "plants are not actually plants, but some schematic representation", but also explains why the plants look weird and many nymphs are in strange poses. Not sure if there is any relation to the study of correlations here.

If I'd say anything, my theory is that a generative mechanism turns a word into many words, perhaps letter by letter. It adds pre/suff-ixes, modifies letters, adds false root etc so that we end up with what we have, a text poor in individual characters and overburdened with words.

As far as I know, this is a very popular idea and over the years a lot of systems and devices explaining how the words were produced have been proposed. Again, does the study of correlations play any particular role here?