(22-05-2026, 11:56 PM)ReneZ wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(22-05-2026, 01:31 PM)Dunsel wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.our estimate for the theoretical space pretty accurate. I calculated 203 possible variants. But your ~10 alternatives is underestimating.
Fair enough. When oversimplifying things, they become oversimplistic...
How many variants will cover for the most frequent 95%?
I guess the top ten won't do it, but it will be relatively close.
(22-05-2026, 01:31 PM)Dunsel wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And they're not evenly distributed.
Very distinctly uneven. This is also important, though it will be hard to say more than that this indicates the existence of rules.
For just chedy and it's variants?
| Transcription | ED1 variants | Total ED1-neighbor tokens | Variants needed for 95% |
|---|---|---|---|
| Takahashi | 54 | 1835 | 19 |
| Zandbergen/Landini | 53 | 1884 | 19 |
Top 10 variants of chedy coverage.
| Transcription | Top 10 coverage |
|---|---|
| Takahashi | 83.8% |
| Zandbergen/Landini | 83.9% |
After running the test to answer your question, I decided to run a much bigger test on the entire corpus without specifying a family. I haven't run this test before so this kinda amazes me.
| Transcription | Vocabulary | ED1 Components | Largest ED1 Component | % Vocabulary in Largest | % Tokens in Largest |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Takahashi | 6813 | 700 | 6077 | 89.2% | 97.8% |
| Zandbergen/Landini | 7604 | 976 | 6589 | 86.7% | 97.3% |
Almost the entire Voynich running text belongs to one enormous ED1 mutation network. The manuscript does not explore all theoretical mutations equally. But the vocabulary remains mutation-connected almost everywhere.