Mark Knowles > 28-11-2022, 03:29 AM
(27-11-2022, 10:12 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This discussion would make more sense if you could provide positive indications of anything in the manuscript that points to a date after 1430. Haguenau style existed before Lauber, so similarities with this style are not an indication.
I will also once again point out that the style of the ladies' dress is even rarer and in our admittedly limited survey resulted in an even narrower window within the 1400-1430 period. Do you know of any fashion items in the MS that must postdate 1430? This would immediately terminate this discussion and help us all enormously.
Koen G > 28-11-2022, 08:26 AM
ReneZ > 28-11-2022, 08:36 AM
(27-11-2022, 03:40 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(27-11-2022, 12:50 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Your own model
All I have done is taken the dataset that Koen lists, unvarnished. I have then calculated the mean and variance on the basis of the data. The only sense in which I have imposed "my model" is in assuming the underlying data is normally distributed; that seems to be a pretty fair assumption and consistent with the distribution of the data. So to say that it is "Your own model" seems to give the impression this is one that I have cooked up to prove a point. I would be very interested if anyone could suggest an alternative model based on the dataset.
Mark Knowles > 28-11-2022, 09:02 AM
(28-11-2022, 08:36 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You have brought your model forward twice, precisely to 'prove' the point that the 95% probability upper limit is at 1444.
(28-11-2022, 08:36 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You did this also in this thread, where you are trying to argue that a date after 1430 is in fact more likely.
Except that the same model says that this probability is 16% (after 1431). This is not logical and you are not being critical, at least of your own views.
(28-11-2022, 08:36 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Also, in this post, it is the third time that you challenge readers to argue why your model is not good, or to come up with a better one. So you stand behind it. You should accept the 16% after 1431.
(28-11-2022, 08:36 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The 16% probability after 1431 is not matched by Koen's data, which has only 3 (out of 35) points above 1431.
Mark Knowles > 28-11-2022, 12:07 PM
(28-11-2022, 08:26 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It might sound to you like I am just looking for a tiny difference to criticize, but the fact that the sleeves continue to the ground and into the trail, being more "one" with the dress is still common after 1430.These two illustrations appear remarkably similar to the one you discount.
Koen G > 28-11-2022, 12:48 PM
Quote:One justified remark that was made about some of my proposals was: is this really a sleeve or more like a cape or the edge of the dress? The Voynich women wear sleeves that are clearly separated from the dress; they don’t touch the ground and aren’t folded back. This eliminates a large amount of my initial contributions, but we are left with the most certain parallels.
ReneZ > 28-11-2022, 12:55 PM
(28-11-2022, 09:02 AM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I am not basing my argument about the 1430s being more likely solely nor primarily on this model. What I tried to do, is by taking Koen's data demonstrate that it is unreasonable to exclude the 1430s and that this kind of analysis had not been done prior to the pre-1430 dating.
(28-11-2022, 09:02 AM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(One should note that I am not excluding 1430 as you seem keen to.)
[...]
Firstly you are referring to within 1 standard deviation from the mean, something like a 68% confidence interval. Do you apply the same standard to the carbon dating?
R. Sale > 28-11-2022, 09:00 PM
Koen G > 28-11-2022, 09:19 PM
davidjackson > 28-11-2022, 09:32 PM