Torsten > 14-06-2019, 03:16 PM
(12-06-2019, 10:46 PM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If I am not mistaken, when the vertical distances are restricted to the same page the diagrams are much different:
ReneZ > 15-06-2019, 06:29 AM
Quote:Anyway, the whole discussion about an alternative experiment to simulate a high level graph as given in figure 4 is at best a sidetrack.
Torsten > 16-06-2019, 01:17 PM
(15-06-2019, 06:29 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Torsten,
I have no reason to doubt your statistics so I trust they are correct.
(15-06-2019, 06:29 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I do find the auto-copying hypothesis not sufficient as a method for constructing the Voynich MS text. Not every word in the MS is a copy with edit distance 0 or 1 from a recent word, for any reasonable definition of 'recent'. The percentage of such words for different definitions of 'recent' could be computed but this has not been done. What if more than 50% of words is not a copy with edit distance 0 or 1 from within the last 10 lines? Then more than half the text is not explained.
(15-06-2019, 06:29 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.My biggest problem is with the conclusion. It does not follow that the correlation between edit distance and distance in the text is evidence that the text is meaningless.
(15-06-2019, 06:29 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Quote:Anyway, the whole discussion about an alternative experiment to simulate a high level graph as given in figure 4 is at best a sidetrack.This is not a sidetrack. It is an example how a meaningful text can also exhibit this unusual property, and demonstrates that the conclusion is not valid.
(15-06-2019, 06:29 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It is of course perfectly fine to be of the opinion that the text is meaningless, but this does not follow from the evidence presented.
ReneZ > 17-06-2019, 05:26 AM
Quote:For instance he was for sure able to add a word like <daiin> out of his head, or he could start a new paragraph, or he could invent a new glyph
Torsten > 17-06-2019, 06:51 AM
(17-06-2019, 05:26 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Quote:For instance he was for sure able to add a word like <daiin> out of his head, or he could start a new paragraph, or he could invent a new glyph
This is exactly a point I was asking about much earlier on. You can't have auto-copying without some initialisation, and this part is not addressed. The text clearly shows that this was not just a one-off to start the process (like only the first word in the MS) but must have been going on all the time, and relatively frequently.
Torsten > 25-06-2019, 12:00 AM
(23-06-2019, 06:49 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I am quite sure that a procedural method can reproduce any statistical feature of Voynichese (or of any other text).
(23-06-2019, 06:49 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don't understand why self-citation should cause the initial glyph of one word to depend on the final glyph of the previous word.
(23-06-2019, 06:49 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Also, please correct me if I am wrong, but I think the generated text here doesn't feature any clear dependency between the last glyph of a word and the first glyph of the next word?
(23-06-2019, 06:49 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Something I particularly like about your approach is that you take reduplication and quasi-reduplication seriously. You have created a system that nicely models them.
MarcoP > 27-06-2019, 02:11 PM
(25-06-2019, 12:00 AM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(23-06-2019, 06:49 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don't understand why self-citation should cause the initial glyph of one word to depend on the final glyph of the previous word.
The previous word is the last written word. To copy an element of the previous word is therefore an obvious choice. The only problem is that this choice is indeed obvious. The shape of <q> is quite similar to the shape of <y>. See for instance the difference between <y> and <q> in <yoky> and <qoty> on page f79r.
It is possible to demonstrate that indeed an element of the previous word was copied. Consecutive tokens start more often than expected with the same initial glyphs or end with the same final glyphs. See table 1. "Initial-Initial dependency" and table 3 "Final-Final dependency" in the Analysis of word dependency by Vladimir Sazonov: "As it is clear from the tables 1 and 3, the words very often reproduce the same form (the same initial or the same final) in the next word. For example, -aiin or qo- or -dy can repeat many times with good density" (V. Sazonov 2003).
(25-06-2019, 12:00 AM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(23-06-2019, 06:49 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Also, please correct me if I am wrong, but I think the generated text here doesn't feature any clear dependency between the last glyph of a word and the first glyph of the next word?
"Keep in mind that the VMS was created by a human writer who had complete freedom to vary some details of the generating algorithm on the spur of a moment. ..." (Timm & Schinner 2019, p. 16). With other words we didn't argue that the text was created by a computer program and we didn't argue that our program is able to simulate the complexity of a human mind.
Beside line breaks numerous similar rules for describing some kind of local repetition exists. Even if I would try to add each rule it would still be possible to point to an another similar rule. At the same time each additional rule would increase the complexity of the program and it would be argued that the program is too sophisticated. Therefore our goal was to keep the algorithm as simple as possible.
Torsten > 28-06-2019, 02:43 PM
(27-06-2019, 02:11 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I will first comment your second argument. I interpret it as a suggestion that initial-initial repetition and/or final-final repetition can cause a bias in the distribution of word-break combinations.
(27-06-2019, 02:11 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Turning to your first argument, if I understand correctly what you write, it appears to be more in agreement with the observations: the word after -y is modified or selected in such a way that it starts with q-. I understand your statement that "The shape of <q> is quite similar to the shape of <y>" as your explanation for why q- appears to be systematically chosen to be written immediately after -y. Graphical similarity is somehow subjective. One can also say that <y> looks like <o>, but the word-break combination -y.o- is slightly dis-preferred (i.e. occurs less often than expected).
Similarly, -o.y- is dis-preferred. Moreover, all the immediate repetitions of the same character across words are dis-preferred (in various degrees): if the idea were having similar characters across word-breaks, -y.y- could have been an option.
(27-06-2019, 02:11 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If one examines word-break preferences in their entirety, it is possible to point out a different explanation that applies to a large part of the observations.
MarcoP > 28-06-2019, 05:06 PM
(28-06-2019, 02:43 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.My point is that initial-initial repetition, final-final repetition, and word-break combinations have the same cause. The cause is that words co-occur with similar ones. This means that word-break combinations are just another samples of local repetition.
(28-06-2019, 02:43 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.A general principle of the self-citation method is to copy glyph sequences and to avoid obvious repetitions by replacing glyphs with similar ones (see Timm 2015, p. 5).
Torsten > 28-06-2019, 11:51 PM
(28-06-2019, 05:06 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(28-06-2019, 02:43 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.My point is that initial-initial repetition, final-final repetition, and word-break combinations have the same cause. The cause is that words co-occur with similar ones. This means that word-break combinations are just another samples of local repetition.
(28-06-2019, 05:06 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[/font][/font][/font]On the other hand, I guess your argument works for initial-initial repetition and final-final repetition.
(28-06-2019, 05:06 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[/font]
(28-06-2019, 02:43 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.A general principle of the self-citation method is to copy glyph sequences and to avoid obvious repetitions by replacing glyphs with similar ones (see Timm 2015, p. 5).