[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: voynich@xxxxxxxx*Subject*: A few LSC comments*From*: Zandbergen@xxxxxxxxxxx (Rene)*Date*: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 22:45:33 +0100*Delivered-to*: reeds@research.att.com*Sender*: jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

I haven't yet been able to do any further calculations and comparisons, but here are a few assorted comments. First of all, Jim Reeds detected an error in the calculation of Se, but it soon turned out that this is a typo on my web page. Where I wrote: Se = 2 (L* - k) ( 1 - SUM ( etc.... )) it should have been: Se = 2 (L* - n) ( 1 - SUM ( etc.... )) Secondly, I agree with Gabriel that using a 3rd order word monkey would be even more interesting in terms of checking the capabilities of the LSC method in detecting meaningful text. On the other hand, getting meaningful word entropy statistics is even more difficult than getting 3rd order character entropy values, so the text from a 3rd order word monkey will repeat the source text from which the statistics have been drawn much more closely than should be the case. As before, a 1st order word monkey will be equivalent to a random permutation of words, and if it is true (in a statistically significant manner) that the LSC test distinguishes between one and the other, we do have another useful piece of evidence w.r.t. the Voynich MS text. In view of the difficulty in judging the meaningfulness of my quick tests using character monkeys, I'll add 95% (e.g.) confidence intervals around the Sm curves for the random texts. Some time in the next few days. More later, Rene

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: A few LSC comments***From:*Mark Perakh

**Re: A few LSC comments***From:*Mark Perakh

- Prev by Date:
**Re: LSC sums for monkey texts** - Next by Date:
**Re: A few LSC comments** - Previous by thread:
**Re: And another...** - Next by thread:
**Re: A few LSC comments** - Index(es):