11-02-2026, 02:01 AM
@Jorge_Stolfi,
In my view, there are serious problems with your method, so I am offering my peer review.
You acknowledge in your article that a quire of four pages is “visibly missing,” but that is not operationalized in your calculations and conclusions, except for some statistical approximation likelihoods that can hardly count as evidence. The same goes for the likelihoods of (re)ordering of the paragraphs.
You have simply proceeded to show your statistics overlap between the two texts based on those assumptions. Your approximation method then takes over to dismiss their significance (p. 4). If this, if that, if that, then that. I can see that as being grounds for plausible theorizations, but to claim more seems unreasonable.
360 and 365 are not unique, odd numbers. Either astrologically or astronomically, you can plausibly find literature across cultures in which something was said about them with a paragraph devoted to them, because of Zodiac month counts or days of the year. And if you search and compare enough, you may find statistical matches that may even be more coincidental. This is what coincidences do and 360/365 cannot serve as a smoking gun for a discovery, I am sorry to say. You are counting to your results because it fits it.
But we don’t even know the author meant 360 or 365, less or more. So, your “ifs” can come to the rescue when evidence is lacking. So, 10-paragraph introduction” (p.4) can come to the rescue (p. 4), “incorrect ordering” can come to the rescue, and so on.
Sorry, for not being clear about that question. My question about “enormous graphics” was simply that in the Voynich manuscript there is an enormous number of graphics/images. The Chinese text you are comparing the last section with is only text-based. I was asking, you expect us to assume somehow such a text would be able to explain and inspire the extent and amount of images we find in the Voynich manuscript in such graphic detail?
You are offering a “solution” for the section of the Voynich manuscript and then expect that it would explain not just other section texts, but the enormous amount of images found there? Seem implausible to me at its face value.
In the linked sources you referred me to, much of it is conjunctural, again, based on “ifs” because you have relied on a text no one can read which then serves you to compare with a language (Chinese) you don’t speak yourself to establish statistical patterns. You write, “To split imperfect blocks, we set a 'definitive' parag break after every short line, even if the next line cannot get a starlet assigned to it [my note: so, you decided to give starlets to them using your AFAIK? logic?!]. That line will be the start of an 'unstarred' parag. We also put a 'tentative' parg break before any line that has at least one puff, even if the previous line is not short and no starlet can be assigned to it [my note: This sounds like a AFAIK logic again, to me]. Those two decisions divide each imperfect block into 'tentative parags'.” (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) This just illustrates the tentativeness of how you have divided the paragraphs and then wish to draw definitive statistical conclusions from it for a definitive discovery claim.
Regarding your traveler theory, you say someone read the text to him and he noted it down in his invented writing, not understanding it (as you say, because there was no one to translate it) his intention being “when I get back I will find a Chinese speaker to understand what’s in this piece others say is magnificent, but I can’t understand.”
What I was saying was, why not ask a Chinese scribe to copy it IN CHINESE, and bring THAT home? Is that harder than inventing a whole alphabet and trying to figure out what the reader is reading, any mistakes or mis-hearings of the delicate words withstanding? If he could travel there, he could certainly find a way of doing that, no? How far can we go to invent even new odd justifications for making such an unreasonable propositions plausible (i.e., lost money traveling?! Seriously?)
In my view, there are serious problems with your method, so I am offering my peer review.
You acknowledge in your article that a quire of four pages is “visibly missing,” but that is not operationalized in your calculations and conclusions, except for some statistical approximation likelihoods that can hardly count as evidence. The same goes for the likelihoods of (re)ordering of the paragraphs.
You have simply proceeded to show your statistics overlap between the two texts based on those assumptions. Your approximation method then takes over to dismiss their significance (p. 4). If this, if that, if that, then that. I can see that as being grounds for plausible theorizations, but to claim more seems unreasonable.
360 and 365 are not unique, odd numbers. Either astrologically or astronomically, you can plausibly find literature across cultures in which something was said about them with a paragraph devoted to them, because of Zodiac month counts or days of the year. And if you search and compare enough, you may find statistical matches that may even be more coincidental. This is what coincidences do and 360/365 cannot serve as a smoking gun for a discovery, I am sorry to say. You are counting to your results because it fits it.
But we don’t even know the author meant 360 or 365, less or more. So, your “ifs” can come to the rescue when evidence is lacking. So, 10-paragraph introduction” (p.4) can come to the rescue (p. 4), “incorrect ordering” can come to the rescue, and so on.
Sorry, for not being clear about that question. My question about “enormous graphics” was simply that in the Voynich manuscript there is an enormous number of graphics/images. The Chinese text you are comparing the last section with is only text-based. I was asking, you expect us to assume somehow such a text would be able to explain and inspire the extent and amount of images we find in the Voynich manuscript in such graphic detail?
You are offering a “solution” for the section of the Voynich manuscript and then expect that it would explain not just other section texts, but the enormous amount of images found there? Seem implausible to me at its face value.
In the linked sources you referred me to, much of it is conjunctural, again, based on “ifs” because you have relied on a text no one can read which then serves you to compare with a language (Chinese) you don’t speak yourself to establish statistical patterns. You write, “To split imperfect blocks, we set a 'definitive' parag break after every short line, even if the next line cannot get a starlet assigned to it [my note: so, you decided to give starlets to them using your AFAIK? logic?!]. That line will be the start of an 'unstarred' parag. We also put a 'tentative' parg break before any line that has at least one puff, even if the previous line is not short and no starlet can be assigned to it [my note: This sounds like a AFAIK logic again, to me]. Those two decisions divide each imperfect block into 'tentative parags'.” (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) This just illustrates the tentativeness of how you have divided the paragraphs and then wish to draw definitive statistical conclusions from it for a definitive discovery claim.
Regarding your traveler theory, you say someone read the text to him and he noted it down in his invented writing, not understanding it (as you say, because there was no one to translate it) his intention being “when I get back I will find a Chinese speaker to understand what’s in this piece others say is magnificent, but I can’t understand.”
What I was saying was, why not ask a Chinese scribe to copy it IN CHINESE, and bring THAT home? Is that harder than inventing a whole alphabet and trying to figure out what the reader is reading, any mistakes or mis-hearings of the delicate words withstanding? If he could travel there, he could certainly find a way of doing that, no? How far can we go to invent even new odd justifications for making such an unreasonable propositions plausible (i.e., lost money traveling?! Seriously?)