(17-09-2020, 02:55 PM)DONJCH Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In my opinion, the forum is poorer for this loss.
I agree. I certainly did not and do not want Torsten to leave the forum. Of course we all need to take breaks from time to time. But Torsten has produced interesting material in his papers, and it is certainly a worthwhile part of the discussion. My suggestion that perhaps another colleague of Torsten's could explain his ideas on this forum, was not at all a suggestion that Torsten should not continue to participate in the discussion as well.
Of course, if Torsten stays in the forum as we hope he does, and continues to make his arguments for his theories, then naturally other participants will continue to respond and debate and make counter-arguments and disagree and criticize his arguments where they believe it is warranted. Nobody can be expected to soften their responses or disagreements or criticisms just to prevent a person from leaving the forum.
With that said, I find the discussion quite interesting and I very much hope Torsten stays here. For example, I for one was hoping to hear what Torsten had to say about the You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. as a portion of all [ch], vs. the relative frequency of [ockh] and [octh] as a portion of all [ckh] and [cth]. (Expressed another way, after [c] the overwhelmingly most common following glyph is [h] in 87% of occurrences, but after [oc], the next glyph is [h] in only 30% of occurrences, while it is [k]/[t]/[p]/[f] in 70%.) I do not see how an algorithmic generating method such as Torsten proposes would logically prefer not to add [o] before [ch], but would have no such avoidance of adding [o] before [ckh] and [cth]. But perhaps there is a logical explanation, and the discussion would be helpful in evaluating both the generating algorithm method and the verbose cipher theories in the context of which I made this observation.