Koen G > 17-10-2020, 10:05 AM
geoffreycaveney > 17-10-2020, 03:35 PM
(17-10-2020, 07:54 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Well, the original objection from Marco still stands, namely that the selection of the VCI is based on just one of a great number of different possible verbose ciphers.
Let's say that this number is 100. Koen and Marco perhaps tried about that number of different combinations in the 'entropy hunting 3' work, but there are many more that they did not try. So let's stay conservative and use 100.
The next step is mapping the VCI to plain text characters. For an alphabet size of (say) 25, it is well known that there are 25! (factorial) different ways of doing that, which is of the order 10**25. However, that is clearly pessimistic. Let's again be conservative and assume that we know which are the 5 vowels and the 20 consonants. We can swap the vowels freely (5!) and for each consonant we would have 3 options. This gives 5! times 3**20 possibilities, which is close to one million, and there is no particular reason to pick one or the other except for a 'feeling' or 'intuition'.
The probability of having it right is already 1 in 10**8.
Next, the words need to be adjusted to make them 'real old Polish words'. Again, being conservative, let's say that only every second word has two different options. Now there are 38 words, so that gives 2**19 different versions, which is half a million.
In the end, the possibility of having the right Polish text is conservatively estimated as 1 in 5 * 10**13.
How should this number be interpreted?
It means that you could have, with equal probability, followed 5 * 10**13 different procedures to arrive at an old Polish plain text without ever knowing, along the way, if it was the right one.
ReneZ > 17-10-2020, 03:58 PM
geoffreycaveney > 17-10-2020, 04:07 PM
(17-10-2020, 10:05 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Entirely correct, Rene. For me the greatest value in the experiment is that it negates the argument that Voynichese words don't contain enough information to be real language. They do, but the information is just watered down.
Additionally, as I mentioned before, the original post contained two mistakes which helped increase entropy:
- the entire VM was used, not just one section
- a number of spaces were accidentally removed
At this moment I am working on a revision which should set everything straight. I will look at HA, HB, Q13 and Q20 separately. I just finished the optimal list for Herbal A and it looks completely different.
geoffreycaveney > 17-10-2020, 04:18 PM
tavie > 17-10-2020, 05:47 PM
ReneZ > 17-10-2020, 05:55 PM
(17-10-2020, 04:18 PM)geoffreycaveney Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It is simply not possible to properly evaluate a theory about a text written in an unknown script representing a Slavic language, if one does not have any specific linguistic knowledge of Slavic languages and Slavic linguistics. Without such knowledge, one cannot possibly be qualified to evaluate such a theory.
geoffreycaveney > 18-10-2020, 04:46 PM
(17-10-2020, 05:55 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Any theory that tries to explain the Voynich MS text as a case of language X has to meet the known properties of the Voynich MS text and the proposed language X.
Both.
It can be rejected without knowledge of language X, if it does not meet the properties of the Voynich MS.
Furthermore, the theory needs to be acceptable in terms of logic, and it has to be statistically sound.
Also these two points are independent of the proposed language.
Of course, if you find anyone who has knowledge of Slavic languages, and who thinks that your plain text is sensible, then your proposed solution could deserve more serious attention.
The famous proposed solution by Hauer and Kondrak failed in all these counts (i.e. not even considering the Hebrew language). Of course, it was also rejected by people really knowing Hebrew.
ReneZ > 18-10-2020, 05:29 PM
(18-10-2020, 04:46 PM)geoffreycaveney Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But I do not see how your earlier points about the large number of total possible verbose cipher analyses of the script "refute" my theory or show it to be in contradiction to any known properties of the Voynich MS text in any way
geoffreycaveney > 18-10-2020, 07:21 PM
(18-10-2020, 05:29 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(18-10-2020, 04:46 PM)geoffreycaveney Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But I do not see how your earlier points about the large number of total possible verbose cipher analyses of the script "refute" my theory or show it to be in contradiction to any known properties of the Voynich MS text in any wayIt only shows that the probability that your solution is the right one is astronomically low.