- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
Why the auto-copying hypothesis is not valid?
- Why the auto-copying hypothesis is not valid?
-
Why the auto-copying hypothesis is not valid?
stellar > 09-02-2017, 05:01 AM
@ Torsten and all,
Quote:With my app I only want to demonstrate that it is possible to generate a text with such features with a algorithm simulating my auto copy hypotheses. The main problem was to model human ingenuity in to the algorithm and to keep the algorithm as simple as possible. Therefore the algorithm only produces a pseudo text with features similar to the VMS. If I would generate the same text as in the VMS Emma would be right with her objection that my algorithm only reproduces the movements of the scribe.
My major objection here comes from two competing theories Torstens' and what is done if vords represent numbers to words. How could and auto-copying produce meaning as in numbers from glyph's in a Zodiac and a cipher? That would be impossible right!
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Plus why would the Author of the VMS use the same glyphs for chives and fishes which fit into a strategy to setup a decoding process for the VMS. The Author obviously intended to do what I have demonstrated here in this image below.
Have I stumbled upon a cipher? I have seen the copying process which is linked above to Torsten's app and eerily similar do the VMS but many vords are different.
The demonstration for objection if this theory below shows a consistent Zodiac and then Pleiade, Aldebaran and Tauris. How could an auto-copy do this?
![[Image: zodiacstars1.png]](https://voynichgematria.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/zodiacstars1.png)
-
RE: Why the auto-copying hypothesis is not valid?
Wladimir D > 09-02-2017, 05:35 AM
I understand very well the work of Timm, since itself walked along this path in the construction of algorithms.
But. 1 / These considerations contain slender shape only if the gaps are real.
2 / transformation structure collapsing if we take the principle of the glyphs Anton (basic element + modifier). And if my guess is that the characters "a", "o", "n", "c", "r" .... are digrams. -
RE: Why the auto-copying hypothesis is not valid?
stellar > 10-03-2017, 03:31 PM
@ You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Besides your observation of diagrams, how do you feel about the topic at hand? What I'm asking is my observation from the initial question!
So here it is again!
How could and auto-copying produce meaning as in numbers from glyph's in a Zodiac and a cipher? -
RE: Why the auto-copying hypothesis is not valid?
Koen G > 10-03-2017, 03:58 PM
Isn't the whole point of auto-copying that it produces text without meaning? -
RE: Why the auto-copying hypothesis is not valid?
ReneZ > 10-03-2017, 04:24 PM
Well, if a text with 10,000 different words (=word types) is reduced to numbers in the range of 1-99,
then one could argue that 99% of the meaning is lost and only 1% is left over.
In that sense, both are methods to generate meaningless text.
To make it even more interesting....
How does one then go from a number (1-99) to a Voynichese word?
One could take a number of base patters which represent 10, 20, 30 etc.
Then, to add the units, one could have all sorts of rules:
- Add a plume to ch to make it Sh = +1
- Add an i = +1
- Add a e = +2
- Change k to t = +2
- Change f to p = +2
- Change r to l = +3
etc. etc.
Doing this, one could end up with something that looks like the output of an auto-copying process. -
RE: Why the auto-copying hypothesis is not valid?
Davidsch > 10-03-2017, 04:40 PM
Yes, but visually logical would be:
ch to make it Sh = +2
k to t = +4
f to p = +4 -
RE: Why the auto-copying hypothesis is not valid?
stellar > 10-03-2017, 04:56 PM
(10-03-2017, 03:58 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Isn't the whole point of auto-copying that it produces text without meaning?
Yes, but the Zodiac I produced does have meaning from the cipher I produced. With that in mind one can say the VMS does have meaning! -
RE: Why the auto-copying hypothesis is not valid?
stellar > 10-03-2017, 05:06 PM
(10-03-2017, 04:24 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Well, if a text with 10,000 different words (=word types) is reduced to numbers in the range of 1-99,
@ReneZ
then one could argue that 99% of the meaning is lost and only 1% is left over.
In that sense, both are methods to generate meaningless text.
To make it even more interesting....
How does one then go from a number (1-99) to a Voynichese word?
One could take a number of base patters which represent 10, 20, 30 etc.
Then, to add the units, one could have all sorts of rules:
- Add a plume to ch to make it Sh = +1
- Add an i = +1
- Add a e = +2
- Change k to t = +2
- Change f to p = +2
- Change r to l = +3
etc. etc.
Doing this, one could end up with something that looks like the output of an auto-copying process.
Thanks for your reply, currently I'm working with a programmer to produce meaning out of the entire VMS and if it shows meaning for its entirety of paragraphs and labels which runs consistent to the imagery and previous ideas; following the theories in the latest facsimile of the Voynich (edited by Raymond Clemens) from which you are one of the Author's. I will feel I have an absolute proof of 99% or less than the 1% of your opinion.
Quote:How does one then go from a number (1-99) to a Voynichese word?
Simple numbers do relate to words when letters have a numerical value as in a cipher! -
RE: Why the auto-copying hypothesis is not valid?
stellar > 10-03-2017, 05:12 PM
(10-03-2017, 04:40 PM)Davidsch Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Yes, but visually logical would be:
ch to make it Sh = +2
k to t = +4
f to p = +4
Show your work where the numbers have meaning to the VMS from your interpretation of the glyph's in a language of the time period. This cipher below has drawn out meaning in Middle English and Timms ideas are simply invalid in my opinion.
![[Image: voynich-manuscript-gematria-table-tom-e-oneil.png]](https://voynichgematria.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/voynich-manuscript-gematria-table-tom-e-oneil.png)
-
RE: Why the auto-copying hypothesis is not valid?
-JKP- > 11-03-2017, 12:06 AM
(09-02-2017, 05:01 AM)stellar Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
Plus why would the Author of the VMS use the same glyphs for chives and fishes which fit into a strategy to setup a decoding process for the VMS. The Author obviously intended to do what I have demonstrated here in this image below.
...
You appear to be assuming the labels are nouns. There's no proof that they are. The same glyphs would be used if they were both classified as "water" or male/female, or if they were both governed by the same planet or any of the other Galenesque designations popular in the middle ages.
You also assume 1) the glyphs have to be converted to numbers 2) which are then added, 3) which are then associated with a pre-chosen language without sufficient proof that it is in fact underlying the system, and 4) which are then turned into words on the basis of subjective guesses. This is a four-step process that is unproven and essentially a one-way cipher.
You can't use a system with low plausibility to disprove a completely different theory.