ReneZ > 31-05-2019, 10:50 AM
(30-05-2019, 09:17 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(30-05-2019, 08:29 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It would also be possible to produce some key statistics like:
which percentage of words is a modification with edit distance 1 of a recent word, for different definitions of 'recent'.
This is explained on page 5: "Figure 2 shows the resulting network, connecting 6,796 out of 8,026 words (=84.67%)."
(30-05-2019, 08:29 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This is a key value. If this percentage is high, say 80%, then the theory is clearly describing a relevant fraction of the text. If it is low, say 20%, then the theory is *not* describing a relevant fraction of the text. In fact, the vast majority of the text would remain unexplained by the theory.
There is only one giant network connecting all frequently used word types. Only You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (=2.85 %) differ in more then two glyphs to all other word types. They occur only once. Moreover, even for this 229 word types it is usually possible to split them into two or more words also occurring in the VMS. Two words of this kind are <okeokeokeody> and <okeeolkcheey>. It is for instance possible to split this two words into <okeo>+<keo>+<keody> and <okeeol>+<kcheey>. There is simply no word that is not similar to at least one other words. The key value your are asking for is therefore at least 97.15 %.
Torsten > 31-05-2019, 11:15 AM
(31-05-2019, 10:50 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This is not what I meant. The network plots show the end result (or in fact the starting point), but I am interested in the process.
(31-05-2019, 10:50 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.We don't know if the text of the Voynich MS was based on some source text or is meaningless, but we know for sure that it was 'generated' some 600 years ago. This applies either way. It may have been generated using some random process or it may have been generated by manipulating a text.
Your various papers suggest that we will learn what was the process, but while this is described vaguely (taking recent previous words, and modifying them)
(31-05-2019, 10:50 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., the evidence that this happened is not there.
(31-05-2019, 10:50 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The network graph does not show the process.
nablator > 31-05-2019, 01:27 PM
(31-05-2019, 11:15 AM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The reference to the network graph was the answer to your question "which percentage of words is a modification with edit distance 1 of a recent word, for different definitions of 'recent'."It is only relevant if "recent" is defined as "on the same page". For Figure 4 (page 8) is the distance in lines counted across pages in the order that they appear in the (TT) transcription or inside pages only?
Torsten > 31-05-2019, 02:21 PM
(31-05-2019, 01:27 PM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(31-05-2019, 11:15 AM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The reference to the network graph was the answer to your question "which percentage of words is a modification with edit distance 1 of a recent word, for different definitions of 'recent'."It is only relevant if "recent" is defined as "on the same page". For Figure 4 (page 8) is the distance in lines counted across pages in the order that they appear in the (TT) transcription or inside pages only?
nablator > 31-05-2019, 02:45 PM
(31-05-2019, 02:21 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.They are counted across pages in the order as they appear in the transcription. It is therefore visible that pages in Currier B (a) contain more text then pages in Currier A (b). It is also visible that words in Currier B are on average longer then in Currier A (see also graph 18 in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., p. 28). This means that the effect is smaller than otherwise and that it would be possible to improve the significance of the graph. Nevertheless, the graph is already of high significance anyway.
Anton > 31-05-2019, 03:22 PM
Torsten > 31-05-2019, 04:58 PM
(31-05-2019, 03:22 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As a side note, what is the length distribution of vords generated with the proposed algorithm? Does it match what is observed with the VMS (binomial)?
Antonio García Jiménez > 31-05-2019, 05:22 PM
bi3mw > 31-05-2019, 05:40 PM
(31-05-2019, 03:22 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As a side note, what is the length distribution of vords generated with the proposed algorithm? Does it match what is observed with the VMS (binomial)?
Quote: See page 2: "We use the algorithm to create a 'facsimile' of the VMS 'Recipes' section."
Anton > 31-05-2019, 09:44 PM
(31-05-2019, 04:58 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(31-05-2019, 03:22 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Did you read the argumentation given in the paper?
No, I haven't. In fact, I haven't read the paper, to begin with.
(31-05-2019, 05:40 PM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[quote="Anton" pid='28186' dateline='1559312558']
As a side note, what is the length distribution of vords generated with the proposed algorithm? Does it match what is observed with the VMS (binomial)?
Quote: See page 2: "We use the algorithm to create a 'facsimile' of the VMS 'Recipes' section."
For further explanation You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. .