DONJCH > 14-02-2020, 01:18 AM
Anton > 14-02-2020, 01:12 PM
MarcoP > 15-02-2020, 11:33 AM
MarcoP > 16-02-2020, 05:16 PM
Quote:The various hypotheses about the VMS can be summarized into three categories: (i) A sequence of words without a meaningful message; (ii) a meaningful text written originally in an existing language which was coded (and possibly encrypted with a mono-alphabetic cipher) in the Voynich alphabet; and (iii) a meaningful text written in an unknown (possibly constructed) language. While it is impossible to investigate systematically all these hypotheses, here we perform a number of statistical analyses which aim at clarifying the feasibility of each of these scenarios. To address point (i) we analyze shuffled texts.
...
The values of X [any of several statistical measures] for the VMS ... in Table 3 indicate that the VMS is not compatible with shuffled texts
...
Table 3 shows the largest distances [between the VMS and its shuffled versions] for intermittency (I and I*) and network measurements (k and L*). Because intermittency is strongly affected by stylistic/semantic aspects and network measurements are mainly influenced by syntactic factors, we take these results to mean that the VMS is not compatible with shuffled, meaningless texts.
Torsten > 16-02-2020, 09:38 PM
Alin_J > 17-02-2020, 07:45 PM
(16-02-2020, 05:16 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If I understand correctly, they say that you can discriminate meaningful texts by checking if they differ from texts produced by randomly shuffling the same words.
Quote:The compatibility with natural texts was computed using Eq. (1), where P was computed adding Gaussian distributions centered around each X observed in the New Testament over different languages L. The standard deviation on each Gaussian representing a book in the test dataset should be proportional to the variation of X across different texts and therefore we used the least sigma between English and Portuguese.
Torsten > 17-02-2020, 08:22 PM
Alin_J > 17-02-2020, 08:52 PM
(17-02-2020, 08:22 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hi Jonas!
I wonder if the summary given with the reference to your paper is correct in your eyes?
The undark.org article states that a "statistical paper published in November described how visual analysis of the letters identified patterns in the script itself that seem similar to other written alphabets." As far as I can see this doesn't seem to fit with your results. You explicitly wrote: "This study neither intends to support that the Voynich manuscript is a hoax or that it is a meaningful text" (Alin 2019, p. 2). In fact, you are also arguing that the PCA analyses was "not completely successful in classifying the characters into vowel- and consonant groups, or the script either does not contain vowels (abjad-script), or has vowels and consonants arranged in some other fashion due to a transposition encryption scheme" (Alin 2019, p. 13).
Further you describe the following observation "the more similar the characters look, the more similar would be their pattern of transition probabilities to other characters" (Alin 2019, p. 16). This way your paper does in fact confirm our description of the VMs (see Timm & Schinner 2019, p. 2f or Timm 2014, p. 4f) and also confirms one of the three modification rules we describe in our paper: select a source word and modify it, by replacing "one or more glyphs by similar ones" (Timm & Schinner 2019, p. 9).
nickpelling > 17-02-2020, 09:55 PM
Torsten > 17-02-2020, 10:57 PM