Koen G > 29-05-2017, 10:17 PM
Emma May Smith > 29-05-2017, 11:23 PM
(29-05-2017, 09:28 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(27-05-2017, 06:38 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(26-05-2017, 05:22 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Here is the statement:
"Cryptologists say the writing has all the characteristics of a real language."
Is that really true? Is that the general consensus among cryptologists? Is there a general consensus among cryptologists?
I'm very keen on the possibility that the Voynich text is ultimately a natural language or something very similar, and I wouldn't quite agree with this statement (not that I'm a cryptologist either).
This is what Cryptologists say about the Voynich manuscript:
Torsten > 29-05-2017, 11:25 PM
(29-05-2017, 10:17 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think something like auto-copying cannot be proven, and it can only be proven wrong if someone ever manages to "read" the text in a convincing way. So at the moment I must say that it could be right, So to be completely honest, my objections against it are more based on feeling than on evidence, since the evidence does not allow us to push either solution.
A main objection is that it would just be an awful lot of work for nothing. People just don't do this. For a similar reason it cannot be a complex cipher either because it is already the largest known historical "ciphertext" by far.
Anyway, to get back to the topic of natural language, I'm still a bit confused about that term. When people say "it can't be natural language", don't they rather mean "it can't be language that is written in a known, natural way"?
Torsten > 30-05-2017, 12:31 AM
(29-05-2017, 11:23 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Quote:Torsten
(27-05-2017, 06:38 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(26-05-2017, 05:22 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Here is the statement:
"Cryptologists say the writing has all the characteristics of a real language."
Is that really true? Is that the general consensus among cryptologists? Is there a general consensus among cryptologists?
I'm very keen on the possibility that the Voynich text is ultimately a natural language or something very similar, and I wouldn't quite agree with this statement (not that I'm a cryptologist either).
This is what Cryptologists say about the Voynich manuscript:
Good word, I try to be humble about my own position and you give me chapter and verse! Maybe I should simply defend my research position unstintingly, fail to respond to genuine problems, and continue hammering on with the same beliefs year after year?
ReneZ > 30-05-2017, 05:32 AM
(29-05-2017, 09:28 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This is what Cryptologists say about the Voynich manuscript:
"Languages simply do not behave in this way." [...]
-JKP- > 30-05-2017, 06:24 AM
Torsten > 30-05-2017, 07:39 AM
(30-05-2017, 05:32 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(29-05-2017, 09:28 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This is what Cryptologists say about the Voynich manuscript:
"Languages simply do not behave in this way." [...]
Sorry Torsten, but that is not right.
One cannot take the words of Friedman, Tiltman, et al. and interpret them as saying something that they did not mean.
The essence of what each of them was saying is that a reasonably simple cipher is not going to work in decrypting the Voynich MS, for the various reasons that they presented: it will not result in a text with language-like behaviour.
Friedman settled on the possibility that it was some constructed language, so his opinion is definitely language.
Tiltman declared that he considered some more complicated form of a cipher, not that it's meaningless.
Their conclusions further justify the words in the video.
The better known argument in favour of meaningful contents is the Montemurro and Zanette paper, as I already mentioned before, which made the press some years ago.
Note that I don't agree with their conclusions. That is: I don't think that the conclusion is justified by the analysis.
ReneZ > 30-05-2017, 10:09 AM
Torsten > 30-05-2017, 10:36 AM
(30-05-2017, 10:09 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The 'lack of repeating sequences' has been named many times as evidence that there is not a meaningful text.
This is, for me, the most badly treated topic in all Voynich MS text analyses.
Critical numerical comparisons are not to be found. There was at least some of that here in this forum, and of course it is not easy.
Psillycyber > 30-05-2017, 07:40 PM