03-11-2016, 05:23 PM
Very good analytical posting Anton.
Numbers
A standard book, contains always many numbers, like chapter numbers, line number, references, pages numbers and other counts for measurements like weight, age, number of trees, numbers of stars, cost of things etc. In my research I always remove any reference to a number that is written in digits. Because numbers are a pain in the ass when you want to research text: how to interpret them? If you write numbers as text, like twelve hundred, it is still text and forms no problem.
That the whole entropy discussion is really an old and only very rough indication by log(n). In number theory, when you would use entropy you will be the laughing stock of the community for example. It is something like going to use an old mercury thermometer to measure temperature. But, the indication itself is nice to establish a definition for warm and cold.
The entropy itself can be made more complex by adding more variables from outside. But that makes it even more useless as a general indication: the more variables you add, the more specific it becomes and it becomes a worse indication as general measure. (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)
For the Voynich manuscript clamping on to old theories, old methods and old ideas has never proven to be fruitful. My system is far better, simpler and more advanced than the entropy comparison. But of course, I do no have the stamp of "renowned scientist", and therefore the chances that it will be picked up are incredible slim. For me that is not important, but I would really like it, if people would remain equally critical on these so called (old) scientists and their research.
For example present journalists & editors are not critical, 95% of all text is just copied and printed without a single effort of research.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to your piece, Anton
Numbers
A standard book, contains always many numbers, like chapter numbers, line number, references, pages numbers and other counts for measurements like weight, age, number of trees, numbers of stars, cost of things etc. In my research I always remove any reference to a number that is written in digits. Because numbers are a pain in the ass when you want to research text: how to interpret them? If you write numbers as text, like twelve hundred, it is still text and forms no problem.
That the whole entropy discussion is really an old and only very rough indication by log(n). In number theory, when you would use entropy you will be the laughing stock of the community for example. It is something like going to use an old mercury thermometer to measure temperature. But, the indication itself is nice to establish a definition for warm and cold.
The entropy itself can be made more complex by adding more variables from outside. But that makes it even more useless as a general indication: the more variables you add, the more specific it becomes and it becomes a worse indication as general measure. (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)
For the Voynich manuscript clamping on to old theories, old methods and old ideas has never proven to be fruitful. My system is far better, simpler and more advanced than the entropy comparison. But of course, I do no have the stamp of "renowned scientist", and therefore the chances that it will be picked up are incredible slim. For me that is not important, but I would really like it, if people would remain equally critical on these so called (old) scientists and their research.
For example present journalists & editors are not critical, 95% of all text is just copied and printed without a single effort of research.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to your piece, Anton
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)