19-07-2026, 06:25 PM
Of course, there could be other reasons that I’m not aware of.
The interpretation itself is, of course, still hypothetical, too. I assume that “aiin” could stand for “-en” and that “y[space]qo” could stand for “e,” but neither of these values has been proven by plaintext so far.
Since y and qo have an extremely strong bond, it could, of course, apply only to qo or y alone, without space.
So this is merely another meaningful compatibility test for the VBM, not proof of the VBM. The model provides a concrete explanation for the anomaly.
The many tests here are not about individual cases, but rather about the now considerable number of statistical peculiarities that can be very easily explained by the VBM. That is what makes this theory unique—not the individual tests. In my opinion, that’s the amazing part of it.
The interpretation itself is, of course, still hypothetical, too. I assume that “aiin” could stand for “-en” and that “y[space]qo” could stand for “e,” but neither of these values has been proven by plaintext so far.
Since y and qo have an extremely strong bond, it could, of course, apply only to qo or y alone, without space.
So this is merely another meaningful compatibility test for the VBM, not proof of the VBM. The model provides a concrete explanation for the anomaly.
The many tests here are not about individual cases, but rather about the now considerable number of statistical peculiarities that can be very easily explained by the VBM. That is what makes this theory unique—not the individual tests. In my opinion, that’s the amazing part of it.