oshfdk > 27-01-2025, 03:00 AM
ReneZ > 27-01-2025, 08:38 AM
(27-01-2025, 12:18 AM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm not sure why this took me this long to notice, but I think there is a good case (if you think CLS has any merit) that EVA: L, is the line equivalent of EVA: Y.
oshfdk > 27-01-2025, 09:09 AM
(27-01-2025, 08:38 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(27-01-2025, 12:18 AM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm not sure why this took me this long to notice, but I think there is a good case (if you think CLS has any merit) that EVA: L, is the line equivalent of EVA: Y.
I agree.
I think that this was also already pointed out in Brian Cham's original document (possibly co-authored with David Jackson): You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
What it may lead us to is another question.
Bluetoes101 > 27-01-2025, 07:27 PM
ReneZ > 28-01-2025, 03:48 AM
Bluetoes101 > 28-01-2025, 04:02 PM
oshfdk > 28-01-2025, 05:03 PM
(28-01-2025, 04:02 PM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I agree. However, I also think "you can't have your cake and eat it too" in regards to considering a system which shows typical Voynich word construction.
If we call "lines", "lines" as in the base line glyph construction method, the system does not work.
I've gone fairly off in the weeds past the CLS now, I'm debating if it is correct etiquette to give it a new name or not.. but anyway,
Here is "f6r", I have highlighted which words my system shows as (currently) non-conforming.
I have crossed out (underlined where overlap) each word I believe fail original CLS.
In my view it has worked pretty well to point out 4 "words" where 3 are unique and 1 appears twice.
(03-01-2025, 11:28 AM)Mauro Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.After introducing the concept of ‘looping’ slot grammars, a generalization of standard grammars, I show how any grammar can be used in a distinctive lossless data compression algorithm to generate a compressed Voynich Manuscript text. This allows the definition of a new metric free from fundamental flaws: Nbits, the total number of bits needed to store the compressed text. I then compare published state-of-the-art grammars and the newly introduced LOOP-L grammar class using the Nbits metric.
Mauro > 28-01-2025, 11:11 PM
(28-01-2025, 05:03 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(28-01-2025, 04:02 PM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I agree. However, I also think "you can't have your cake and eat it too" in regards to considering a system which shows typical Voynich word construction.
If we call "lines", "lines" as in the base line glyph construction method, the system does not work.
I've gone fairly off in the weeds past the CLS now, I'm debating if it is correct etiquette to give it a new name or not.. but anyway,
Here is "f6r", I have highlighted which words my system shows as (currently) non-conforming.
I have crossed out (underlined where overlap) each word I believe fail original CLS.
In my view it has worked pretty well to point out 4 "words" where 3 are unique and 1 appears twice.
As far as I see, what you create is very similar to a "loop" grammar showing possible transitions from character to character. The problem with grammars is the more rules and classes you create, the more flexible you make a grammar, the less specific and less useful it gets. It's very promising that your system correctly predicts (shows as conforming) more words than the original CLS, but could you also estimate whether this happens at the cost of greatly increasing the total number of possible conforming sequences (unattested) that could be produced?
Because the upper extreme of this system is "any character can follow any character", which obviously covers anything and tells us nothing.
There was another thread where @Mauro introduced several very interesting metrics that can be used to compare the efficiency of grammars:
(03-01-2025, 11:28 AM)Mauro Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.After introducing the concept of ‘looping’ slot grammars, a generalization of standard grammars, I show how any grammar can be used in a distinctive lossless data compression algorithm to generate a compressed Voynich Manuscript text. This allows the definition of a new metric free from fundamental flaws: Nbits, the total number of bits needed to store the compressed text. I then compare published state-of-the-art grammars and the newly introduced LOOP-L grammar class using the Nbits metric.
Would be great to be able to compare your system with the original CLS and other grammars not based on curve-line system, to see which ones are mathematically superior.
Bluetoes101 > 29-01-2025, 12:24 AM
Bluetoes101 > 29-01-2025, 12:37 AM
(28-01-2025, 11:11 PM)Mauro Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It's surely interesting.
I have first to read an understand exactly how Blutoes101's curve-line system works, then see if my software can manage it, hopefully without too much additional coding. I'll let you know in a few days.