davidd > 10-06-2025, 04:57 PM
Rafal > 10-06-2025, 10:46 PM
davidma > 10-06-2025, 11:36 PM
(10-06-2025, 10:46 PM)Rafal Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.For me the surprising section is quireT, which seems different from the rest, having the quality score much higher and similar to real texts.
davidd > 11-06-2025, 12:20 AM
(10-06-2025, 10:46 PM)Rafal Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Davidd, do you show anywhere which pages are included in the sections (Astronomical, Biological, Cosmological...) that you use in your analysis?
For me the surprising section is quireT, which seems different from the rest, having the quality score much higher and similar to real texts.
You know, we often ask question if Voynich is meaningful or meaningless. Actually in theory the truth may be more suble - some sections may be meaningful while other not
And people in their research usually focused on the parts with pictures as they give some clues and didn't work much on plain walls of text.
davidd > 11-06-2025, 12:24 AM
(10-06-2025, 11:36 PM)davidma Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(10-06-2025, 10:46 PM)Rafal Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.For me the surprising section is quireT, which seems different from the rest, having the quality score much higher and similar to real texts.
QuireT has about 10000 vords while the others about 1500, I wonder if this impacts the score. I must have also missed where he said that but it would be good to get an actual folio split for the quires/sections analysed.
I do think the fact that the 10000 vord quire scores so closely to the vulgata text and so far from the randomised genesis is a good indicator of some sort of meaning or at least a structured relationship between vords. I think the paper "gibberish after all" showed that Voynich behaviour could be coherent with a sort of asemic writing rather than a purely randomised text. I guess now we only need 38000 words of asemic writing to compare
anyasophira > 11-06-2025, 02:22 AM
dashstofsk > 11-06-2025, 08:56 AM
(10-06-2025, 10:46 PM)Rafal Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.the surprising section is quireT
davidd > 11-06-2025, 09:37 AM
(11-06-2025, 02:22 AM)anyasophira Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.….so is replacing m for iin showing that it helps or worsens or doesn’t change voynich …. Lack of entropy ? Strict positional preference based on these glyphs? That’s what the challenge was right? Let’s see if we can mess with m as shorthand to see what happens. What happened? Not good at math here you might need to um, paint a description? ??
anyasophira > 12-06-2025, 12:20 AM
(11-06-2025, 09:37 AM)davidd Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(11-06-2025, 02:22 AM)anyasophira Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.….so is replacing m for iin showing that it helps or worsens or doesn’t change voynich …. Lack of entropy ? Strict positional preference based on these glyphs? That’s what the challenge was right? Let’s see if we can mess with m as shorthand to see what happens. What happened? Not good at math here you might need to um, paint a description? ??
In the tests it doesnt seem to change much about the score, which is a good sign that it may be true. If those are equivalent ways to write the same thing, the software should already be more likely to put those equivalent vords in the same group.