(28-05-2026, 06:22 PM)oshfdk wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don't think I understand what these graphs show. What is "Chunk Count" in the first graph, is it the total count per corpus for particular hand? Why do all five scribes have comparable overall chunk count?
Basically, the ML script looked at the Voynich for each scribe. It then tried to identify syllables, not just bigrams and trigrams. So you have a mixture of n-grams like <ch>, <co>, <che>, <aiin>. Then it counted and weighted the occurrences of each of those n-grams (chunks) in each scribe's pages. So, in the first 2 charts you have n-gram in the x axis and count in the y axis.
The second set of charts takes specific n-grams that increase or decrease by scribe usage and plots those by count. What that is showing is that specific n-gram usage is increasing or decreasing linearly by scribe. Not random ups and downs, a smooth progression of n-gram usage.
What I expected to see was some randomness as each of these scribes are generally section specific. It's not. Their n-gram usage is linear. What I'm seeing instead is that these n-grams increase or decrease based on the scribe and it's not like scribe 2 preferred <ch> more than scribe 5. It's sequential. Scribe 1 used <ch>. Scribe 2 used it less. Scribe 3 even less... etc.
I know you are no fan of the copy/mutate idea but imagine this: Scribe 1 writes a page. Scribe 2 gets that page and does a copy/mutate and in the process, uses some n-grams a little less, some a little more. Then Scribe 3 gets Scribe 2's page and they do a copy and mutate. Because some n-grams are used less and some more, Scribe 3 amplifies this slightly. Now those same n-grams are less or more on the Scribe 3 page than Scribe 2 or 1. Now Scribe 4 gets that page and does a copy/mutate.... etc.
I'm not saying that's definitely the explanation but I think it's one possible explanation.