Split: Entropy digression

[ReneZ]

We are not talking about opinions here, but about straightfoward numerical calculations.
About facts, really.

There are more people than just nablator and myself who can do entropy calculations.

It's a little unusual to go down the route of "your figures are wrong, prove to me that they are right". 

It is entirely resaonable, when two independent alternative results are consistent, and contradict a third one, that the third one goes back to check what he's done. In fact, refusing to do so is hardly scientific, and certainly not good (software) engineering practice.

@nablator already pointed out, after the first (of now three) times that Stefan Wirtz produced his incorrect values, that he probably processed the v101 transliteration without removing the annotations in the file, like:

<67v2.label_upper_left>
<67v2.label_upper_right>

I don't know if that's what happened but it is a very reasonable suggestion. It would also not be a fault of any software, but of the person running the test. The ball remains squarely in Stefan Wirtz' court. 

Or you can also just believe us.

This isn't productive way to discuss this, imo.

It was just presented as an option :-)
In fact, I would also consider it good advice.

EDIT:
just for completeness, let me add a You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., which is very clear and very specific.

He shows how the incorrect value of Stefan Wirtz (2.87 rounded to 2.9) can be obtained, and how the correct calculation leads to 2.59 when one includes spaces as characters. My value was 2.57 with spaces and 2.37 without. We may not have been processing uncertain spaces in the same way.
Not treating spaces as characters is more useful, but what matters is that one does the same for the Voynich text and the comparison texts.