The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[dashstofsk]

So now, to prove that claim SPS=SBJ, we would have to show that some consequences predicted by this hypothesis are unlikely to be the result of random chance, as they would have to be under the SPS≠SBJ hypothesis. 

To demonstrate some confidence in the hypothesis that SBJ is quire 20 you would need to show that it shares many of the oddities, anomalies and statistical irregularities. Doing it just for one paragraph isn't enough.

Here are some suggestions for you.

The text in quire 20 is composed of two language clusters. ( See You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ). If you could do an analysis of the SBJ and show that its pages also show two distinct clusters then that would be something worthy to report.

You could do with 'zhu' in the SBJ something similar to what I have done with  daiin in quire 20 ( see my output below ), to randomly place 'zhu' to get a measure of its variability within the SBJ. And then to see if there is some match of this statistic between the two texts. My simulations, after doing 1000 of them, show that the measure of variability of  daiin in quire 20 is 2.94 standard deviations away from what would be expected if all the words  daiin were placed randomly.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

   

In quire 20 20% of the text is made up of 16 words. I showed the list previously [ You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ]. Is it so also with the SBJ?

daiin is not the most common word in quire 20. The frequencies of  ar chedy are both higher. Is there a match for these within the SBJ?

These are the sort of things you need to do.