nickpelling > 07-09-2020, 10:04 PM
(07-09-2020, 06:40 PM)RenegadeHealer Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I keep hearing rumors, both here and on Nick Pelling's blog, that someone has attempted to execute Torsten Timm's self-citation method using low-tech methods, and failed to replicate his results.
Emma May Smith > 07-09-2020, 10:19 PM
RenegadeHealer > 07-09-2020, 11:22 PM
(07-09-2020, 10:04 PM)nickpelling Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(07-09-2020, 06:40 PM)RenegadeHealer Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I keep hearing rumors, both here and on Nick Pelling's blog, that someone has attempted to execute Torsten Timm's self-citation method using low-tech methods, and failed to replicate his results.
I'm unaware of any such rumour appearing on my blog.
Anton > 07-09-2020, 11:25 PM
DonaldFisk > 07-09-2020, 11:47 PM
(07-09-2020, 08:18 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The dismissal of the text as fake or gibberish is good and solid. They used the comparisons of Zipf's law, proportional frequency, and MATTR to show that the Voynich text is broadly similar to natural language. While these measures are measuring related things, all three would be hard to fake.
Quote:As with the Zipfian word distribution, we find Voynich to be well within the expected values for natural language texts, and far from random gibberish. If the Voynich text is meaningless, its creators mimicked natural language in a sophisticated way.
I don't find it credible that a hoaxer before 1910 could have achieved this either by design or by luck.
Anton > 08-09-2020, 12:00 AM
Quote:n essence, because gibberish is by nature random, it should not display any of the higher level organizational properties that The Voynich Manuscript displays (as summarized here in §3.3 and §4). The Voynich Manuscript is highly unusual and non-language like at the character level. For measures that look above the word to line and paragraph, as well as in the distribution of words across the manuscript, it looks like a natural language. This strongly implies that the manuscript is encoded natural language rather than gibberish, since the measures used to track the paragraph structure are very unlikely to be directly manipulated and so are a good indicator of real structure.
Stephen Carlson > 08-09-2020, 12:43 AM
(07-09-2020, 11:47 PM)DonaldFisk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I generated some You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. which You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. (So did Gordon Rugg and Torsten Timm, by different methods.)Right, there is an article by Wentian Li, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (1992), that makes a similar claim. But the literature is not unanimous; for example, this article by Ramon Ferrer-i-Cancho and [font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Brita Elvevåg, [/font]You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (2010), argues the opposite.
I was aware of Zipf's Law, and that it was followed by the Voynich Manuscript, at the time I generated my fake Voynich Manuscript, but following Zipf's Law was an accidental output, not an input. All my method required was a set of tables for choosing the current glyph given the previous glyph, and a method for generating random numbers. My method wasn't quite correct but it was enough to follow Zipf's Law, and that wasn't intentional (though I would have rejected it and tried something else if it didn't).
RobGea > 08-09-2020, 01:15 AM
DonaldFisk > 08-09-2020, 01:16 AM
(08-09-2020, 12:43 AM)Stephen Carlson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(07-09-2020, 11:47 PM)DonaldFisk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I generated some You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. which You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. (So did Gordon Rugg and Torsten Timm, by different methods.)Right, there is an article by Wentian Li, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (1992), that makes a similar claim. But the literature is not unanimous; for example, this article by Ramon Ferrer-i-Cancho and [font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Brita Elvevåg, [/font]You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (2010), argues the opposite.
I was aware of Zipf's Law, and that it was followed by the Voynich Manuscript, at the time I generated my fake Voynich Manuscript, but following Zipf's Law was an accidental output, not an input. All my method required was a set of tables for choosing the current glyph given the previous glyph, and a method for generating random numbers. My method wasn't quite correct but it was enough to follow Zipf's Law, and that wasn't intentional (though I would have rejected it and tried something else if it didn't).
I don't really have to the time to referee this dispute, but as fair as I can tell there are plenty of cases were non-linguistic processes can generate Zipfian distributions. The upshot is, to use the terminology of biostatistics, the observation of a Zipfian distribution is sensitive to, but not specific of, a linguistic generating process. In other words, while the false negatives may be low, the false positives could be high.
ETA: I should I add that while I found these articles by a quick Google search, they are also cited in the Schinner & Timm paper.
MichelleL11 > 08-09-2020, 02:50 AM
(07-09-2020, 11:22 PM)RenegadeHealer Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(07-09-2020, 10:04 PM)nickpelling Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(07-09-2020, 06:40 PM)RenegadeHealer Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I keep hearing rumors, both here and on Nick Pelling's blog, that someone has attempted to execute Torsten Timm's self-citation method using low-tech methods, and failed to replicate his results.
I'm unaware of any such rumour appearing on my blog.
I'm obviously remembering it wrong then.