The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[Jorge_Stolfi]

However, it appears as if you are considering each of those starting positions as valid, which is where this breaks down. You can keep changing the hidden variables for the dice roll scenario, but every time the dice is rolled there is a hypothetical set of assumptions that would be correct. In the case of the VMS, these variables are not changing this way, and if/when they do occasionally change it rightly has a big effect on all assumptions.

But please think again.  There is no such thing as the "correct" probability of something, because in the real world there are no probabilities.  In reality, either the die will show '3' or it will not show '3'.  Either the SPS is a copy of the SBJ, or it is not a copy of the SBJ. 

Again, the probability of a proposition is only a numerical way to express one's degree of belief that the proposition is true.  The proposition itself is either true or false.  Thus the probability is an attribute of the person, not of the proposition.

• "The changes made to the original SBJ are valid"
  

I don't know what changes you are referring to.  The omission of the flavor and other fields?  What do you mean by "valid"?

• "The matches found between the SPS and SBJ are valid and signficant"
  
• "The chance that these matches would occur at random is X"
  

These are the same thing.  The matches are significant if there is a low probability that they would occur if the SPS was a random text unrelated to the SBJ.

Well, astrolabium splits 1 thing into 30 seperately depicted single "things". As opposed to 1 thing split into 30 within a single diagram. Therefore it makes sense that the individual sections can be seperated without issue, which suggests splitting a circle in 2 wouldn't affect the content within.

Wait, do you mean that the Astrolabium splits the Zodiac into 30 parts of 12 sub-parts, instead of 12 parts of 30 sub-parts?  

If so, it is hardly a precedent for the VMS Zodiac. While both have 360 total sub-parts, the division is quite different.  

What is Alphonso's schema?

And if the solar terms splits into 24 equal parts of 15, why are only two split into 15, and the rest into 30?

The proposal is that the initial plan was to have two 15-"thing" diagrams per sign for all signs; but after Taurus the Author felt that it would use too much vellum, so he switched to the 30-"thing" format.

Agreed, this interpretation is not very convincing.  But the splitting of Aries and Taurus still has no known precedent, and it would be somewhat cumbersome.  Imagine a wall calendar where each month is split over two pages.  It seems unlikely that the Author would agree to the split, if he had only the Western view of the Zodiac.

But if the Zodiac section were based on the Chinese Solar Terms scheme, those splits would be natural.

That interpretation also trips on the fact that Pisces is in the "30" format.  Based on the styles of the nymphs, I believe that Pisces was drawn after Taurus 1, and maybe after Taurus 2; but my reasoning is complicated and it involves the Retracing theories...

All the best, --stolfi