MarcoP > 18-02-2020, 05:56 AM
(17-02-2020, 07:45 PM)Alin_J Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Did they assume that their variances (sigmas) in the other languages were the same as for the two languages they had measured many texts of - English and Portuguese? Furthermore, they chose the variance that was smallest (of the English cmp. to Portuguese texts)? Am I understanding correctly?
Then, as I understand, the compatibility was calculated from integration of the upper/lower tails from the measured value, of the interpolated distribution resulting from the use of these sigmas? If these integrals were < 0.05 it is not compatible since it is too far off a reasonable probability.
I don't know about you, but to me this seems a bit bold... assuming the same sigma from the lower of only two measurements (languages). Not that I think that this would affect much the overall conclusions of the study though.
Quote:Distinguishing Books from Shuffled Sequences
[...]
[measures that] do not fully satisfy ζ1 [...] cannot be used to distinguishing a manuscript [sic] from its shuffled version.
[...]
When we performed the informativeness analysis over the most frequent words, we found that ζ1 is satisfied for the clustering coefficient and for the shortest paths (note that C* and L* are informative while C and L are not).
(31-01-2020, 07:02 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.My preliminary attempts (using the networkx Python library) are not being very successful: in particular, scrambled texts appear to result in higher mean clustering C than original texts, while in the paper the opposite happens.
Alin_J > 18-02-2020, 07:59 AM
(18-02-2020, 05:56 AM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Another puzzling thing: Amancio et. al measured a lower C (and C*) for the original text than for its scrambled versions: their normalized values are <1. Cardenas' plot shows that C is higher for the original than for scrambled versions. For what is worth, when I tried replicating Cardenas' experiments I found something similar to what reported by Amancio.
MarcoP > 18-02-2020, 09:23 AM
nickpelling > 18-02-2020, 09:27 PM
-JKP- > 19-02-2020, 03:05 PM
(17-02-2020, 10:57 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
nablator > 19-02-2020, 03:46 PM
(19-02-2020, 03:05 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(17-02-2020, 10:57 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view."The analysis was made on a widely available transliteration of the Voynich manuscript text, the '101' format by Glen Claston" (Alin 2019, p. 5).That's the first time I've seen this statement by Nick and I have to say it is BANG on the money. It deserves to be a sig file.
"I strongly believe that the biggest problem we face precedes cryptanalysis – in short, we can’t yet parse what we’re seeing well enough to run genuinely useful statistical tests" (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).
Even now, years later, we have NOT yet parsed the glyphs in any way that is empirically substantiated and until at least SOME of that is accomplished, a large proportion of statistical tests will be glyph-assumption-based and highly questionable.
-JKP- > 19-02-2020, 05:05 PM
MarcoP > 19-02-2020, 05:16 PM
nablator > 19-02-2020, 05:30 PM
(19-02-2020, 05:05 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.8am/daiin is not one of the bigger problems. If one is simply substituting symbol for symbol, the statistics come out somewhat the same. But what if it's not daiin? What if it is claw?They don't matter for words statistics.
...
What if Voynichese uses some of these very prevalent methods of abbreviating text?