pfeaster > 25-08-2021, 04:51 PM
(24-08-2021, 08:26 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Interestingly, these aren't consistent with your results in every case, but are the differences enough to have an impact? Could something like this be the cause?Whether it's the cause or not, I agree that investigating possible effects of different line lengths on rightwardness scores would be very worthwhile. It would seem odd somehow if line length had absolutely no impact on them at all. I do find that limiting analysis to lines of a single length (in words) will occasionally "flip" a pair of averages, and although I just chalked this up to random noise, it would be extremely interesting if there were a pattern to it.
nablator > 27-08-2021, 11:33 AM
(21-08-2021, 05:53 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Three days ago, Patrick Feaster published You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Like the previous one (discussed You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.), it is full of observations, data and graphics (that's why reading it took me a few days). Patrick's work is innovative and thought-provoking: not only he computes interesting quantitative measures, but he presents them visually, making his results much more accessible.
For instance, these two graphs are about line-position for words starting with o- and qo-
Words in each line are assigned to one of 10 positions (longer lines will have more than one word for some positions, while shorter lines will not contribute to some positions). In the first plot, the Y axis shows the % of words starting with o- and qo-.
The plot on the right has the same 10 positions on the X axis and shows the o/qo ratio on the Y. It makes visually clear that, in the first half of the line (with the exception of position 2), the two classes of words have similar frequencies; in the second half of the line, the frequency of o- rises, while that of qo- drops, so that the ratio increases steeply.
This research really deserves to be read carefully. But if you don't feel like reading the whole post, examining the graphs and reading the conclusions will give you an idea of Patrick's results.
pfeaster > 27-08-2021, 12:51 PM
(27-08-2021, 11:33 AM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I tried replicating the above graphs. I kept paragraphs lines only (+P, @P, =P, *P) and removed half spaces (",").Your curves do look different from the ones Marco and I came up with, although they still show variation in the ratio over the course of a line. I wonder whether you might be dividing the line into segments differently than we both did. (Of course, there's no one "right" way to do this.) My first impression is that your first group might overlap our groups 1 and 2, and that our last group might overlap your groups 9 and 10 -- or something like that. Maybe this has to do with rounding up or down when defining group boundaries?
Not the same...
MarcoP > 27-08-2021, 01:00 PM
nablator > 27-08-2021, 01:52 PM
(27-08-2021, 01:00 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.1.As Patrick said, it could be that there are differences in how the mapping to 10 positions is done; I used this method (where i is word position in the range 0..lineLength-1):
pos=1+int(round(9.0*i/float(lineLength-1)))
I am not sure this is exactly what Patrick did, but it appears to be close enough.
nablator > 27-08-2021, 02:44 PM
(27-08-2021, 01:00 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.1.As Patrick said, it could be that there are differences in how the mapping to 10 positions is done; I used this method (where i is word position in the range 0..lineLength-1):
pos=1+int(round(9.0*i/float(lineLength-1)))
pfeaster > 27-08-2021, 04:36 PM
(27-08-2021, 02:44 PM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[quote="MarcoP" pid='47087' dateline='1630065649']For those who aren't set up to run the experiment easily, the first method splits a hypothetical hundred-word line into groups of 6, 11, 11, 11, 11, 11, 11, 11, 11, and 6 words. But here's how the two methods play out with more Voynich-scale lines:
Assuming it's Python, this method disadvantages the first and last position.... Mine...gives an equal space (of size 10) to each position. 10x10 = 100, no unfair advantage to any position.
MarcoP > 27-08-2021, 05:08 PM
pfeaster > 27-08-2021, 06:59 PM
obelus > 01-09-2021, 12:48 PM