davidjackson > 15-04-2017, 09:10 PM
Koen G > 15-04-2017, 11:24 PM
nickpelling > 16-04-2017, 01:31 AM
(15-04-2017, 02:53 PM): DonaldFisk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(15-04-2017, 09:13 AM)nickpelling Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Modelling Voynichese solely as a (large) set of prefixes and suffixes is arguably even more reductive than Gordon Rugg's table (if more empirical). But I don't honestly think { {pick a prefix} x {pick a suffix} } really counts as a valid state transition model in any useful sense of the phrase.Because I wrote the blog pages in the order I did the analysis, only correcting things if I subsequently discovered them to be wrong (i.e. mistakes), it's easy to misinterpret what I wrote. I could have avoided that if I simply wrote a paper after doing the research, leaving out any ideas which I pursued along the way that were eventually dropped, such as that words are composed from prefixes and suffixes. But I also wanted to show the path the research took, not just the final result. Perhaps I should have advised people to read my blog backwards.
My theory is that words are composed of individual glyphs, not prefixes and suffixes. At each state, a glyph is output and then a transition is followed.
DonaldFisk > 16-04-2017, 03:42 AM
(16-04-2017, 01:31 AM)nickpelling Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(15-04-2017, 02:53 PM): DonaldFisk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Because I wrote the blog pages in the order I did the analysis, only correcting things if I subsequently discovered them to be wrong (i.e. mistakes), it's easy to misinterpret what I wrote. I could have avoided that if I simply wrote a paper after doing the research, leaving out any ideas which I pursued along the way that were eventually dropped, such as that words are composed from prefixes and suffixes. But I also wanted to show the path the research took, not just the final result. Perhaps I should have advised people to read my blog backwards.
My theory is that words are composed of individual glyphs, not prefixes and suffixes. At each state, a glyph is output and then a transition is followed.
I should have been a little clearer. I have read all your webpages, and I do completely understand that you model the set of prefixes and suffixes as two separate state transition models (where the letters o and e appear in three different places and the letters y, d and l all appears twice).
However, it's very hard not to see the way that d, o, l and y appear in both halves as a tidying-up model hack to make the division between prefix model and suffix model seem simpler than it actually is in practice.
The bigger problem I have with each of your two individual state transition models is that I don't believe that the state transitions in either half are independent of the preceding context. That is, the point about practical state machines is that they aim to model not only the connectedness of the transitions but also the exit probabilities, and I really don't believe that this is the case here.
But for me, the biggest problem of all (and this is what I was actually trying to get at before) is that turning the division between prefix and suffix into something like a state transition boundary but mediated by a huge empirical table individually tweaked for each section of the text just isn't a credible explanation. It's a mechanism that can only ever "explain" after the fact (and even then with tons of special case tweaking).
davidjackson > 16-04-2017, 06:57 AM
nickpelling > 16-04-2017, 09:19 AM
(16-04-2017, 03:42 AM)DonaldFisk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There are probably better choices of states, but the aim was to find a set of states good enough to show that the manuscript can be generated from state transition tables. I think that as some glyphs appear in more than one context within words, they will need more than one state, and as words have different frequencies in different parts of the manuscript, several variants of a template state transition table will be needed.
Davidsch > 16-04-2017, 02:07 PM
nickpelling > 16-04-2017, 10:44 PM
(16-04-2017, 02:07 PM)Davidsch Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@Nick, the candidate groups that you are proposing are not necessary wrong, but the difficulty is the contents of that grouplist.
I made a comparison of the behavior of letters & 2-grams & 3-grams and the outcome is that we can probably form groups, but they are of unequal length and form.
I have now a very nice frequency of the members of these groups. I know from attempts before that comparing them with all the freq. I have of all other languages (new & old) will be fruitless. Let's assume I will not even try that.
>>At the end of all this, (a) there should be a single model, not two or more; and (b) the outbound transition probabilities from each node in the best-fit model should be determined as strongly as possible by the context itself, not by the preceding context.
What do you suggest to do with the "model" now?
Davidsch > 17-04-2017, 09:56 AM
nickpelling > 17-04-2017, 10:39 AM
(17-04-2017, 09:56 AM)Davidsch Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It is probable that your invention is more complex than I can imagine, perhaps I can humbly ask again, ;-) and since I am really curious:
what to do with any outcome of such a model?