The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[oshfdk]

OK, then I make the same challenge I made to @oshfdk and others: find me any old manuscript -- any language, any origin, any topic, any date before 1500 -- whose parag count and min, max, and average size are anywhere close to those of the SBJ as the SPS numbers are.

And if you find such a book, see if you can find one parag and one word whose places of occurrence in that parag match those of 主 in the Rooster recipe, even with 10% error.

I see no need for this. If after hunting for many years you managed to identify the best statistical fit for SPS, I trust that it's reasonably good compared to the competition. Especially given that you went through the trouble of inventing some custom paragraph breaking rules. I'd be surprised if an alternative match can be easily found which would surpass yours statistically.

I don't think this means much for the validity of your argument. This conversation pretty much reminds me of other solvers who would insist that they have "translated" a larger percentage of the vocabulary, so this means their "translation" is the best one and would ask to show them a "better" translation which would cover a larger portion of the manuscript.