Split: Entropy digression

[Stefan Wirtz_2]

[..]
@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. 

Either you did not get it, or you are playing games with me.
I do not edit or remove anything in transliterations when using Ed's online tool; just have the choice between different transliterations, where GCs are 2 between several others.
So I am not "producing.. incorrect values" and had no influence upon any annotations.

In fact, I would also consider it good advice.

non-taken

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. 

I never wrote "2.87 rounded to 2.9" anywhere. 
Maybe a way for you to gain some applause here, but just quote me right next time.

At all, you are just saying that v101 has too much mistakes for doing entropy calculations. Yours is better? 
I doubt that, coming with a character set of just 26. 
Made my point in another thread that the number of "atoms and elements" could reach 39, by observations of their appearance in VMS text.

Meanwhile, @nablator and Ed are exchanging a v101.txt-file here: you can review this base easily for "annotations" and other problems yourself.

Did I mention already that I do not care really much for entropy calculations at all?
I did. Fine.