14-02-2026, 06:08 AM
I would like to add the following: The positions are clear, and the topic has already been discussed almost exhaustively. From here on, we will probably find ourselves going round in circles more and more.
My own conclusion from the arguments put forward so far is: yes, there is an very interesting statistical signal.
However, in my professional life, I have seen statistical signals of a mathematical nature that were so striking that they seemed to explain a lot – and later turned out to be pure coincidence. Therefore, I am sceptical ‘for professional reasons’. And healthy scepticism is a good thing.
In this sense, it is just as difficult to claim that this is proof as it is to claim that it is not proof. But that is exactly my point:
if, on the basis of this thesis, further interesting patterns emerge when comparing these two texts, this will increasingly support Stolfi's thesis. And I will wait for that.
As I said, I genuinely hope Stolfi has found it.
My own conclusion from the arguments put forward so far is: yes, there is an very interesting statistical signal.
However, in my professional life, I have seen statistical signals of a mathematical nature that were so striking that they seemed to explain a lot – and later turned out to be pure coincidence. Therefore, I am sceptical ‘for professional reasons’. And healthy scepticism is a good thing.
In this sense, it is just as difficult to claim that this is proof as it is to claim that it is not proof. But that is exactly my point:
if, on the basis of this thesis, further interesting patterns emerge when comparing these two texts, this will increasingly support Stolfi's thesis. And I will wait for that.
As I said, I genuinely hope Stolfi has found it.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)