• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

Morten St George Theory

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Voynich Talk
  • Morten St George Theory
• Morten St George Theory

• RE: Morten St George Theory

  -JKP- > 25-04-2019, 09:06 PM

  (25-04-2019, 06:58 PM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
  
  
  JP, please note that the plus sign (+) for addition was invented during the middle of the 16th century and hence this marginalia is unlikely to date to the 15th century as you claim.

  
  
  The plus sign existed in the 15th century in the senses of "positive quantity", "and", and "add":
  
  • Here is an example from a printed book from the 1480s showing surfeits and deficits from Widmann's Mercantile Arithmetic. The minus sign is longer than the modern version, but the plus sign is the same as the one we use today:
  
  
  
  Widmann apparently also taught these symbols to his students (they've been found in one of his students' notebooks).
  
  • The plus sign in the sense of "and" (rather than the traditional ampersand) existed in the 14th century in one of the copies of  Oresme's mathematical treatise, Algorismus proportionum, 1360.
  
  • The plus sign in the sense of "add" or "add here" was used in the 15th century to mark sections where the rubricator was supposed to add an embellished initial.

• RE: Morten St George Theory

  Morten St. George > 25-04-2019, 10:58 PM

  (25-04-2019, 09:06 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The plus sign existed in the 15th century in the senses of "positive quantity", "and", and "add":
  
  • Here is an example from a printed book from the 1480s showing surfeits and deficits from Widmann's Mercantile Arithmetic. The minus sign is longer than the modern version, but the plus sign is the same as the one we use today:
  
  
  
  Widmann apparently also taught these symbols to his students (they've been found in one of his students' notebooks).
  
  • The plus sign in the sense of "and" (rather than the traditional ampersand) existed in the 14th century in one of the copies of  Oresme's mathematical treatise, Algorismus proportionum, 1360.
  
  • The plus sign in the sense of "add" or "add here" was used in the 15th century to mark sections where the rubricator was supposed to add an embellished initial.

  
  I figured you would find something. You usually do. I think you should write to Google and inform them that they are providing an incorrect response to the question When was the plus sign invented?
  
  Still, 1489 is not 1404-1438 and there appears to be little evidence that the plus sign was widely used (or even known at that time) anywhere outside of a single place in Germany which, by the way, is not Italy.
  
  Are you now willing to concede that the marginalia was likely written after completion of the VMS?

• RE: Morten St George Theory

  -JKP- > 25-04-2019, 11:09 PM

  Morten, I've already told you the plus sign was widely used in charms (in the 14th and 15th centuries).
  
  You're the one who is inventing the "fact" that it is being used as a mathematical symbol on this folio. The plus sign was used for many different purposes. I've already listed five of them.
  
  Your theory-driven assumption "decided" it was a mathematical operator, but the truth is that it can mean a number of things.
  
  
  

  Quote:Morten: I figured you would find something. You usually do.

  
  
  There is a very simple reason for that. Very simple. I look into it more thoroughly than you. There's no reason why you couldn't do that too.
  
  Research is NOT about grabbing the first thing that comes up. It's about looking around and learning what really happened. You would have to be very gullible to trust everything that pops up at the top of Google search. It might be right, but often it is not. It still has to be verified.

• RE: Morten St George Theory

  Morten St. George > 26-04-2019, 12:39 AM

  (25-04-2019, 11:09 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Morten, I've already told you the plus sign was widely used in charms (in the 14th and 15th centuries).

  
  On charms? JP, the plus sign, as a crisscross of two short lines, has to be one of the most fundamental things ever drawn by humans. You can probably find it in Neanderthal caves and everywhere else ever since.
  
  However, the plus sign as a mathematical operator, particularly in conjunction with the equal (=) sign, did not come into common use until the middle of the 16th century.
  
  

  (25-04-2019, 11:09 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You're the one who is inventing the "fact" that it is being used as a mathematical symbol on this folio. The plus sign was used for many different purposes. I've already listed five of them.
  
  Your theory-driven assumption "decided" it was a mathematical operator, but the truth is that it can mean a number of things.

  
  I interpret the following as " + +c " and took it as a signal to start counting.
  
  
  
  The second "+" is very faint on the left side. Does it look like a "+" on your high-resolution computer?

• RE: Morten St George Theory

  -JKP- > 26-04-2019, 01:39 AM

  To me it looks like te or tc (with old-style curved "t").
  
  In medieval text, it's sometimes hard to tell the difference between e and c (they didn't always close the loop on e) and between t and c (some scribes wrote t and c the same).
  
  
  Here's a screensnap:
  
     
  
  
  It's not uncommon to find charms written on the back pages of manuscripts, as in this example. The first part is a remedy, the second part an incantation or talismanic words (sometimes to be written and worn). Note the plus signs between the "power" words and names of angels:
  
     
  
  I'm not saying 116v is a charm, but it does have commonalities with remedies/charms.

• RE: Morten St George Theory

  Morten St. George > 26-04-2019, 04:41 AM

  (26-04-2019, 01:39 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To me it looks like te or tc (with old-style curved "t").
  
  In medieval text, it's sometimes hard to tell the difference between e and c (they didn't always close the loop on e) and between t and c (some scribes wrote t and c the same).

  
  Thanks JP. I have this to say: the t (if it is a t) is not as unambiguously a t as the t of portas, and the e (if it is an e) is not as unambiguously an e as the e of ubren. Of the five c's that I have interpreted as c (to get 500), only the third one looks unambiguous. But assuming that the plus signs are an indication to seek numbers, then if it can be interpreted as a c (which is a number), then it is a c. In the next line, the v, the straight i's and the x's (to get 35) are less ambiguous.
  
  Without any interpretation that is flatly erroneous, the numbers add up to 535, the number of the prophecy to which the marginalia pox leber ubren quarix portas points This is unlikely to be a coincidence.

• RE: Morten St George Theory

  -JKP- > 26-04-2019, 05:25 AM

  Tell me again how you are getting those numbers. I tried to find the previous post and must have zoomed past it (twice).
  
  Which ones are you counting as Roman numerals?
  
  
  By the way, I'm not doubting that there might be numbers. Numbers were common in medieval notations, but I want to know specifically which ones you chose and which ones you omitted.
  
  
  I don't have time to look up how many prophecies there were and I don't know if this is an accurate number, but they are saying 353 quatrains.

• RE: Morten St George Theory

  Morten St. George > 26-04-2019, 06:54 PM

  (26-04-2019, 05:25 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Tell me again how you are getting those numbers. I tried to find the previous post and must have zoomed past it (twice).
  
  Which ones are you counting as Roman numerals?
  
  By the way, I'm not doubting that there might be numbers. Numbers were common in medieval notations, but I want to know specifically which ones you chose and which ones you omitted.

  
  I'm glad you asked:
  
  
  
  NOTES
  
  1. I'm interpreting the second c as c on the basis of the following drawing found on the last line of f116v:
  
  
  
  2. I'm ignoring the garble that follows the second c.
  
  2. I'm rejecting the i of quarix as a number because it has a left hook in sharp contrast to simple vertical or verticalish lines that are counted.
  
  3. The second verticalish line comes with an overstroke which I am taking as a stop-count signal.
  
  

  (26-04-2019, 05:25 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don't have time to look up how many prophecies there were and I don't know if this is an accurate number, but they are saying 353 quatrains.

  
  The first publication of the Nostradamus prophecies (1588) contained 689 quatrains and included prophecy V-35 (the 535 count). After quatrain IV-53 (the 353rd stanza) it made mention of an earlier publication which was fulfilled by 17th-century forgers. The first complete edition (942 quatrains) was published in 1590 and revised editions of that were backdated to 1568.
  
  Note that the Wikipedia articles on Nostradamus were written by astrologers (essentially charlatans) who accept the backdated forgeries as genuine.
  
  Facsimiles of the 16th-century publications including the one of 1588 can be viewed free of charge on the website propheties.it in the Bibliotheque Nostradamus section.

• RE: Morten St George Theory

  davidjackson > 26-04-2019, 07:43 PM

  Why, it's quite obviously a bad bit of functional calculus!
  

  Quote:

  f(x)+t(x) -> {C:r+G} ........
  
  

• RE: Morten St George Theory

  -JKP- > 26-04-2019, 08:27 PM

  That word, top right is more than likely the word "cere". You are counting two of the "e" letters as cees. It's more clear than most of the words on the folio. The footed "r" is written in a normal style for the time.
  
  Note how the "c" has a flat top and the "e" shapes have round tops and little hooks on them. They are not the same letter.
  
  I don't think the first one (top left) is a "c" either. It's probaby "e" as in "ce" or "te". It is rounded.
  
  Why did you count the "x" on morix and marix and ignore the one on "vix". You can't say the Roman numerals are numbers and then ignore the ones that are inconvenient to your conclusion.
• Next Oldest Next Newest