- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
TTR Analysis, Observed vs. Reference Curve
- TTR Analysis, Observed vs. Reference Curve
-
RE: TTR Analysis, Observed vs. Reference Curve
Jorge_Stolfi > Yesterday, 07:31 PM
(Yesterday, 05:46 PM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(Yesterday, 05:33 PM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Is b close to 1/2 ?
No, it's much closer to 1/4 than to 1/2. Isn't that okay?
Weird. I would expect a different 'a' from English, but still a 'b' close to 2, since Voynichese sort of follows Zipf's law.
Would you consider trying that code on other texts? I can provide some if you wish.
All the best, --stolfi -
RE: TTR Analysis, Observed vs. Reference Curve
bi3mw > Yesterday, 07:42 PM
-
RE: TTR Analysis, Observed vs. Reference Curve
nablator > 11 hours ago
-
RE: TTR Analysis, Observed vs. Reference Curve
bi3mw > 10 hours ago
(11 hours ago)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.TTR > 1 means more types than tokens... shouldn't be possible
I fixed the formula. Now the graph is always correct. The code in post #10 has been updated.
The values for b are now higher as well. However, the initial observation remains the same. -
RE: TTR Analysis, Observed vs. Reference Curve
petronio > 4 hours ago
Your kink is real — I ran something along these lines and can put numbers on it.
Section-level null model: shuffle section labels across folios while preserving the Currier A/B split, then size-match each pseudo-section (200 iterations). Two sections sit at opposite extremes: Herbal is far more repetitive than its size and dialect predict (windowed TTR about 14 sigma below the null mean) and Balneological is close behind (about 10 sigma below). The Stars pages go the other way: hapax share about +4.4 sigma above expectation.
@Jorge_Stolfi — I checked the label question: rerunning prose-only (dropping all label/circle/radial loci, about 9% of tokens) changes essentially nothing — Herbal -13.5, Balneo -10.7, Stars +4.3. It's a property of the running text.
One caveat for your kink specifically: the Astro and Zodiac folios carry no Currier assignments at all, so they can't enter this kind of null. The testable Cosmo remainder is positive but not significant. What is directly confirmed is nablator's compensation point — the Q13 dip is the -10 sigma Balneological deficit.
Interesting side result: boundary-structure metrics that separate Currier A from B cleanly are nearly blind to sections. Vocabulary diversity and boundary structure look like two independent layers of organization. -
RE: TTR Analysis, Observed vs. Reference Curve
Jorge_Stolfi > 59 minutes ago
(4 hours ago)petronio Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@Jorge_Stolfi — I checked the label question: rerunning prose-only (dropping all label/circle/radial loci, about 9% of tokens) changes essentially nothing — Herbal -13.5, Balneo -10.7, Stars +4.3. It's a property of the running text.
But is the kink still there when you remove the labels?
All the best, --stolfi -
RE: TTR Analysis, Observed vs. Reference Curve
petronio > 30 minutes ago
I checked this with more than one methodology — and tried to break it, too. Mostly it held: the excess in the Cosmo/Astro stretch survives prose-only (max deviation +0.031 vs +0.036 with labels). The Zodiac part doesn't — those folios are almost all labels, so in a prose-only stream they barely register.
So it's real text behavior, not a label artifact. Where exactly the kink sits is another matter — cumulative curves drag their whole history along, which blurs the location. I get a much cleaner separation with a different setup and heavier tests, which I've been running in parallel.