• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

A Universal Template

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • News
  • [Blog Post] A Universal Template
• A Universal Template

• RE: A Universal Template

  Juan_Sali > 10-05-2024, 01:15 PM

  (09-05-2024, 12:46 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But if there is a very plausible missing word, then why is this word missing in the first place? There must have been something working against its inclusion.

  If it is a code with some ngrams with meaning: x1 x2 x3 ...  xn.
  And some ngrams that behave as null: y1 y2 ... yn.
  And nulls ngrams can be combined with meaningfull ones and the meaning is the same: y1x1   y2x2   x3y4...
  Possible combinations may be huge and some of them will never appear but they will be valid too.

• RE: A Universal Template (Demonstures of the Reptagin)

  obelus > 10-05-2024, 07:21 PM

  (10-05-2024, 09:32 AM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Unattested?

  
  @nablator --
  
  Thanks for checking.
  
  I casually re-used code from a previous post that stripped paragraphs with fewer than 5 lines, which is where dolchedy, olshy, and oteedar occur.  For now I struck them from the posted list.  I will revise it further in the unlikely event that restoring those paragraphs changes the picture.

• RE: A Universal Template

  Torsten > 10-05-2024, 07:47 PM

  (09-05-2024, 12:35 PM)pfeaster Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.That's a really interesting question.  I suspect different methods would yield different answers, but probably still worthwhile to try.  The method I outlined above would give us one way to identify the "most probable" sequence that doesn't actually occur (not necessarily the best way, but a way).  Another promising source of likely valid but unattested words is Torsten Timm's paper at You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. starting at page 66 -- thinking of all the words marked with (---): [doir], [daiiral], etc.  I gather he'd classify all of these as "likely," although I'm not sure he'd have a method for ranking any one of them as "the most likely."

  
  The idea of this grid was the observation that it is possible to generate word types, which exist in the VMS, by using an existing word type and replacing similar shaped glyphs. For instance it is possible to use daiin and replace EVA-iin with EVA-in or EVA-iiin to generate dain and daiiin. The table demonstrates that it is indeed possible to describe the relation between word types. For instance, if it is known that chedy is frequent, it is possible to predict that the word shedy is also frequently used although less frequently than chedy. The general principle for the VMS-text is: high-frequency tokens also tend to have high numbers of similar word types, whereas isolated words (i.e. without any other word with edit distance = 1) usually appear just once in the entire VMS [see Timm & Schinner, 2019, p. 6]. Therefore you can count the number of similar word types (word types with ED = 1) to rank the words.
  
  The reason behind this observation is the existence of a deep correlation between frequency, similarity, and spatial vicinity of tokens: "A useful method to analyze the similarity relations between words of a VMS (sub-)section is their representation as nodes in a graph. Starting with the most frequent token one can recursively search for other words differing by just a single glyph, and connect these new nodes with an edge" [Timm & Schinner 2019, p. 4]. The resulting network for the entire VMS is connecting 6896 out of 8026 word types (=84.67 %). The longest path within this network has a length of 21 steps, substantiating its surprisingly hight connectivity [Timm & Schinner 2019, p. 4].
  
  The existence of a single network of similar word types not only allows to describe the relations between words in the VMS, but also enables us to describe the relationship between different sections: "It seems that the existence of a single network for all word types in the VMS would contradict Currier’s observation that it is possible to clearly distinguish between two different languages, A and B." ... It is possible to distinguish Currier A and B based on frequency counts of tokens containing the sequence <ed>. ... if <chedy> is used more frequently, this also increases the frequency of similar words, like <shedy> or <qokeedy> .... At the same time, also words using the prefix <qok-> are becoming more and more frequent, whereas words typical for Currier A like <chol> and <chor> vanish gradually. Now, reordering the sections with respect to the frequency of token <chedy> replaces the seemingly irregular mixture of two separate languages by the gradual evolution of a single system from 'state A' to 'state B'" [Timm & Schinner 2019, p. 6].
  
  It is not a secret that our research results didn't get much attention. For instance René Zandbergen response to our paper was to publish a paper with the title "No news about the Voynich manuscript" in which he only wrote "(Examples of people who are doing very different things are Rugg (2004) and Timm and Schinner (2019))" [You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.]. Even on his latest website about a related topic our research is not even mentioned [see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.]. I wish to emphasize here that I do not criticize the fact that researchers like René Zandbergen, or Claire Bowern obviously see our work as completely irrelevant. No researcher is above the possibility of making fundamental mistakes, and/or is over-interpreting their results; thus we will always welcome any serious critical discussion of our viewpoint. However, I do criticize that our research is rejected without even discussing it.

• RE: A Universal Template

  RobGea > 11-05-2024, 12:35 AM

  (10-05-2024, 07:47 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It is not a secret that our research results didn't get much attention.

  
  Relax Torsten, there is plenty of time, history will out.
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

• RE: A Universal Template

  ReneZ > 11-05-2024, 08:21 AM

  (10-05-2024, 07:47 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Even on his latest website about a related topic our research is not even mentioned [see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.]. I wish to emphasize here that I do not criticize the fact that researchers like René Zandbergen, or Claire Bowern obviously see our work as completely irrelevant.

  
  It's probably worth setting a few points straight, even if it is partly off-topic to this thread.
  
  I agree that there isn't a lot about your work at my web site, but at least there is a mention You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., with the important references.
  
  More importantly, I do not have any issue with the possibility that the text is meaningless.
  It could well be.
  
  That the text is meaningful is a logical fist assumption, but the evidence for it is very thin.
  
  More than that, I would say that it is probably natural to wish or hope that there is meaning, but if one is serious about it, one has to be able to drop such feelings.
  
  What I do not agree with, is that the proposed methods both by Rugg, and by yourself are 'how it was done'. More specifially, I do not agree that the evidence that has been presented comes anywhere near demonstrating it.
  
  While the existence of the network of words based on single Levenshtein distances is undoubtledly an important key to 'how it was done', this does not at all explain why there are so many forbidden changes. That is another important key.
  
  These 'rules' about what is allowed and what is forbidden are more the topic of the approaches in this thread, and in Massimo Zattera's work. And of course in the various word paradigms that culminated in Stolfi's various word grammars.

• RE: A Universal Template

  Torsten > 12-05-2024, 10:32 AM

  (11-05-2024, 08:21 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.More specifially, I do not agree that the evidence that has been presented comes anywhere near demonstrating it.

  
  Sorry, but agreeing or disagreeing with something is not an argument in itself.
  
  

  (11-05-2024, 08:21 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I agree that there isn't a lot about your work at my web site, but at least there is a mention You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., with the important references.

  
  This only underscores my statement that you reject my entire work without even discussing it.
  
  

  (11-05-2024, 08:21 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.While the existence of the network of words based on single Levenshtein distances is undoubtledly an important key to 'how it was done', this does not at all explain why there are so many forbidden changes.
  
  These 'rules' about what is allowed and what is forbidden are more the topic of the approaches in this thread, and in Massimo Zattera's work. And of course in the various word paradigms that culminated in Stolfi's various word grammars.

  
  The network defines what is 'allowed' and what is not. Therefore, the shift from Currier A to Currier B occurs because the text changes alongside the network of similar words [see Timm & Schinner 2019, p. 6]. 
  
  VMS word grammars, like that proposed by Zattera or Stolfi, are principally problematic: they all tag a significant vocabulary portion of an unknown writing system as 'irregular,' usually words that appear as concatenation of two 'regular' words, or very low frequency words (that usually are seen as errors because they violate the rules just by a single glyph). Several words characteristic for Currier B sections are very rare in Currier A - and would probably be called 'irregular' on basis of an A-only word grammar [Timm & Schinner 2023, p. 11].

• RE: A Universal Template

  Juan_Sali > 12-05-2024, 11:55 AM

  (10-05-2024, 07:47 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Another promising source of likely valid but unattested words is Torsten Timm's paper at You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  This is not the place to discuss your paper and I havent read it carefully.
  In the page 4:
  I) o a e i y (o, a, e, i, y) 
  II) ch Sh n R s l d m q k t p f (ch, sh, n, r, s, l, d, m, q, k, t, p, f) An interesting observation is that glyphs from group II are rarely consecutive. There is at least one exception to this rule. Before and after l ("l") glyphs from group II are also allowed.
  
  ¿How many matches do you consider to be rarely consecutive and how many exceptions do you consider? If a rule has too many expection the rule will be a weak one.
  psh are consecutive 752 times You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  fsh 193 matches You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  pSh 72 matchs You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  fSh 20 matches You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  dch 341 matches You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  dSh 164 matches You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  chs  120 matches You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  Shs 27 matches You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

• RE: A Universal Template

  Torsten > 12-05-2024, 02:55 PM

  (12-05-2024, 11:55 AM)Juan_Sali Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.¿How many matches do you consider to be rarely consecutive and how many exceptions do you consider? If a rule has too many expection the rule will be a weak one.

  
  Please read this sentence within its context. If you read the entire chapter, it should become clear that your fighting words aren't worth fighting over since I argue against the existence of simple 'rules'. In hindsight, I should have avoided using the word "rule" in this sentences to make that clearer.
• Next Oldest Next Newest