(03-05-2021, 05:12 PM)farmerjohn Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Anton, unfortunately this statement is false. It's even more false for physics and completely false for linguistics, biology, history, etc.

You know what I mean. I mean independent validation and reproducibility. If your result is not reproducible, does not withstand fact checking or has logical flaws, it would not - or, rather, should not, - be accepted as confirmed.

(03-05-2021, 05:12 PM)farmerjohn Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So the best way is to believe in arguments and intuition.

I'm afraid that with this approach, when arguments are believed instead of validated, we won't move forward. This is absolutely the same as "believing" in any Voyich theory of one's choice.

(03-05-2021, 05:20 PM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.it comes from what the writer/sribe is doing on 116v, i.e. leaving out vowels

Where else is he leaving out vowels? The only occasion of leaving something out in your interpretation is leaving the consonant ("l").

As a side note, I was thinking that the scribe might leave letters out on purpose according to a certain rule, e.g. "leave out each 3rd letter", that may have explain our difficulties in finding "a good reading", but clear phrases such as "so nim" or "pox leber" do not support this idea.

Quote:the l in milch is an addition whih gives sense to a reading that otherwise  does not make sense

Sorry, but I don't buy this. Again, it's exactly like the Voynich substitution solving, where if anything does not make sense we are suggested some "corrections" which "give sense" to the reading, like "read it backwards", or treat it as abbreviation, etc. What would be a solid argument, if there are other examples of this. What Searcher quoted is interesting in this respect, but this should be checked against the original manuscript.

(03-05-2021, 05:12 PM)farmerjohn Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(03-05-2021, 04:22 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If a mathematician brings forward a theorem, everybody can follow the proof for himself.

Anton, unfortunately this statement is false. It's even more false for physics and completely false for linguistics, biology, history, etc.

It depends on the theorem, the mathematician, and the existing knowledge of the specialized area of mathematics among other qualified mathematicians.

When Andrew Wiles originally proposed his proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, there were only a small handful of specialists in the field qualified to study it and evaluate it, but nevertheless they did so, and one colleague found an error in his argumentation within about a year or less. Fortunately for Wiles, he successfully corrected the error himself, and within about a year he completed a revised proof that was soon accepted as correct by all specialists in that particular branch of mathematics.

When Grigori Perelman posted his series of papers on the arXiv website outlining his proof of the Poincaré Conjecture, specialists in the field were quickly able to verify that his proof was correct and complete. The details that he omitted were generally agreed by specialists in the field to be obvious to knowledgeable mathematicians in this field. 

On the other hand, when Shinichi Mochizuki published a series of papers claiming to elaborate a proof of the so-called "abc conjecture" in number theory, the novelty, difficulty, and sheer length of his arguments has made it challenging for other mathematicians to confirm or reject the validity of his proof. For a summary of the history of discussion and reception of Mochizuki's proposed proof, see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..

Claimed proofs of the Riemann Hypothesis have all been fairly clearly rejected as incorrect to date.

(03-05-2021, 05:27 PM)geoffreycaveney Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.the novelty, difficulty, and sheer length of his arguments has made it challenging for other mathematicians to confirm or reject the validity of his proof

OK, as soon as novelty, difficulty or sheer length of arguments in this thread make it challenging to confirm or reject the validity of the proposed readings, I will step aside. I doubt that will happen anytime soon, except for the length, probably.

Anton, I as if understand that people want validation and reproducibility, but since the VMS is unique outstanding unit some results can also be unique and outstanding. So it's a good idea to give some room for something really unexpected. And it's also good idea to remember that thousands of "I cannot reproduce" don't convert automatically into "is not reproducible".

geoffreycaveney, these are all great examples and I would also add the proof of 4 color theorem, part of which is done by a computer, thus a bit scattering "the proof" notion.

Anton, I also want to clarify "believing in arguments". There sometimes may be several arguments which seem to contradict each other. One can wait for new arguments to resolve the problem. One can (say, using intuition) accept some arguments and build theory based only on these arguments (then turn back to discarded arguments). It's actually the belief that is moving us forward and waiting for concrete arguments that is stopping the process. 

Everybody, excuse me for launching OT.

(03-05-2021, 06:12 PM)farmerjohn Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And it's also good idea to remember that thousands of "I cannot reproduce" don't convert automatically into "is not reproducible".

Exactly, but until and unless something is confirmed, it's still unconfirmed and should be treated as such. A hypothesis is not converted into fact by way of belief, you know.

(03-05-2021, 06:12 PM)farmerjohn Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It's actually the belief that is moving us forward and waiting for concrete arguments that is stopping the process. 

I think belief is confused with intuition and personal preference here. Those are good things, ultimately based on experience, but once again we are speaking not of research directions, but of substituting objective argument with subjective belief. I'm not against anybody's beliefs. I'm against belief being raised above argument.

(03-05-2021, 06:12 PM)farmerjohn Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Everybody, excuse me for launching OT.

No pb, in fact it was me who laucnhed this methodological discourse, maybe we'll split it into a thread on its own.

Where else is he leaving out vowels?

For example in the first line, the 'primum putrefacit' after pox leber

 ... it's exactly like the Voynich substitution solving ...

No, it is not, it is normal editorial praxis

(03-05-2021, 04:22 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
One says, this is "probiren". Where's the argument? Are there any examples where probiren is abbreviated as pbren? Maybe there are, and that would be just excellent, but they should be referenced.
...

I don't have an answer, but I can offer an opinion based on years of reading medieval scripts and manuscripts. The "pro" part can be justified IF the tail of the p had a curved slash across the descender that was obliterated. It was a very common symbol/abbreviation for "pro".

However, the missing "i" is usually indicated with a macron/apostrophe and there isn't one. So, if it is prob(i)ren, the slash on "p" is no longer visible and the macron standing in for "i" has been omitted (which is rare but not impossible, they usually were pretty consistent with macrons).

Returning to the issue of difficulties of the good reading, the point so far mostly neglected here is what Nick Pelling once noted, that the text of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. bears resemblance of being heavily emended by a later person - and that person, I would add, may have been "semi-proficient" indeed, introducing much mess with his inadequate emendations. The degree to which the descenders faded in the last line compared with the intensity of the top portion of letters suggest the degree of change that may have been introduced here.

I think I earlier posted in this thread the observation that somewhat to the left of the leading "a" in anchiton there is the original letter "a" visible.

Applying this idea to the "gasmich" stuff, and taking gasmilch for the working hypothesis, one may suggest that the letter "l" simply faded for the most part over time, and was erroneously emended to "i". In this case what was emended as "i" was in fact the lower portion of the "l". And in such case the faded loop of the "l" should reveal itself under UV or through color correction. I think that I can see some traces of it, but they are uncertain, so I'm far from sure. Also, what was later emended to "m", would then be "mi" originally. I tentatively show the supposed loop, let those who are proficient in graphic editing check if they can see the same. That's what I call careful analysis, not just postulating that "mich" is "milch" just because it "makes sense" if "improved" this way, suggesting others to believe that the guy missed a letter in a commonplace word in the line of five words and failed to notice that - a thing in the whole world less probable than the VMS being written in simple substitution of Middle English (sorry!).

   

(03-05-2021, 07:24 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.- a thing in the whole world less probable than the VMS being written in simple substitution of Middle English (sorry!).

Anton, your post is quite interesting, but of course I'm going to respond to this little closing remark of yours:

Whatever you may say about my "Yorkist cipher" theory of the VMS text, certainly it is the farthest thing from a "simple substitution"! Middle English? Yes, at least for "Language A" that is; but a "simple substitution"? Not at all!

Geoffrey