19-10-2025, 06:50 PM
Perhaps I am being unclear. I believe your decryption (but not, as far as I can tell, plant identification) is internally consistent and reproducible. I also do not doubt that the overwhelming majority of the features you've described---the colors and symbols per se---actually exist in the manuscript, and applying the glosses that you provide in the key is straightforward. Indeed, the fact that you have provided 6 different keys with this property is part of *my* proof that this is quite likely arbitrary.
What I have been driving at is that the logically prior step, namely that of justifying your key, appears to be missing. I have made a good faith effort to solicit or locate that explanation, but so far you have not identified it for me. As near as I can tell everything you've directed me towards is dependent on the readings you have put forward rather than antecedent to it. Unless I gravely misunderstand your argument, the key appears for the first time in 2025 without a breath of circumstantial evidence that it existed beforehand. Can you point to anything specific outside your perception of the manuscript that provides evidence for your key? What prevents me from replacing the words you've put down in any iteration to gloss the EVA script with randomly selected words? Aside from a few of these words being more recent coinages, what distinguishes this list from any of the 6 you've given?
[/quote]
The key isn't arbitrary, it's from data counts and logic. There are many rules fully documented as I've gone along.
For example, why does iiid exist but not iiiid? Why does iiiin exist but not iiiiin? Why do we never see ff, tt, kk, or pp doubled? You can't have two planets together - no Saturn Saturn, no Mars Mars. What can Jupiter get between? Why the difference between upper and plagal tones? Why can only f, t, k, p get between ch?
It all has to be logical. I worked this out through frequency counts, positional analysis, pairing matrices, and structural constraints. The glyphs follow rules - certain combinations never appear, certain positions are fixed, certain maximums exist.
Random word substitution wouldn't follow these rules. Your substitutions would create impossible glyph combinations the manuscript never shows, frequency distributions that don't match the actual data, and violations of the manuscript's internal logic.
The system has discoverable mathematical and structural rules that prove it's encoding something specific, not arbitrary text. All documented in my papers as I discovered them.
When I'm done with more decoding I'll write up a comprehensive rules list, but right now my focus is on the code and moving forward with the sequential decode.
What I have been driving at is that the logically prior step, namely that of justifying your key, appears to be missing. I have made a good faith effort to solicit or locate that explanation, but so far you have not identified it for me. As near as I can tell everything you've directed me towards is dependent on the readings you have put forward rather than antecedent to it. Unless I gravely misunderstand your argument, the key appears for the first time in 2025 without a breath of circumstantial evidence that it existed beforehand. Can you point to anything specific outside your perception of the manuscript that provides evidence for your key? What prevents me from replacing the words you've put down in any iteration to gloss the EVA script with randomly selected words? Aside from a few of these words being more recent coinages, what distinguishes this list from any of the 6 you've given?
[/quote]
The key isn't arbitrary, it's from data counts and logic. There are many rules fully documented as I've gone along.
For example, why does iiid exist but not iiiid? Why does iiiin exist but not iiiiin? Why do we never see ff, tt, kk, or pp doubled? You can't have two planets together - no Saturn Saturn, no Mars Mars. What can Jupiter get between? Why the difference between upper and plagal tones? Why can only f, t, k, p get between ch?
It all has to be logical. I worked this out through frequency counts, positional analysis, pairing matrices, and structural constraints. The glyphs follow rules - certain combinations never appear, certain positions are fixed, certain maximums exist.
Random word substitution wouldn't follow these rules. Your substitutions would create impossible glyph combinations the manuscript never shows, frequency distributions that don't match the actual data, and violations of the manuscript's internal logic.
The system has discoverable mathematical and structural rules that prove it's encoding something specific, not arbitrary text. All documented in my papers as I discovered them.
When I'm done with more decoding I'll write up a comprehensive rules list, but right now my focus is on the code and moving forward with the sequential decode.