The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[tavie]

Of course not.  Bayes explains.  They are all so convinced that the language must be European (or gibberish, or some non-linguistic code) that they will dismiss any evidence to the contrary -- for any nit they can find, or even without looking at the evidence at all.

It really saddens me that you keep saying this kind of thing.  Every solver says something on those lines when we don't accept their solution.  Yes, absolutely everyone else is biased.  Or maybe you haven't provided enough evidence objectively speaking to convince anyone? 

JoJo, forgive me for repeating the advice I gave on another thread:  character-level statistical analyses (character and digraph frequencies, entropies, correlations, etc.) are very likely to be a waste of time.  

One of my character-level statistical analyses led you to remove a wrong criterion for identifying paragraph breaks in the Stars section.  Not a total waste of time, surely?  And when you draw conclusions about final m replacing final n, or p is k on the top row, is that really based on a word-level analysis and not a character-level one?  It's when one goes beyond the individual glyph and look at clusters, if not full word types, that problems with glyph mapping tend to emerge.  And I say that as someone who has feverishly mapped virtually every glyph to another at some point.