VMs: RE: VMS numbering systems hypotheses...

["GC" <glenclaston@xxxxxxxxx>]

Nick, I'm following this conversation with interest.  I too have
my reservations, but find some of it very intuitive.  One thing
that's obvious is that when we both speak of "weakness" being in
the numbers, we're not speaking of the same thing, something that
has to do with our variant angles of approach.

If you would, can you relate your theory to the "17" pattern we
see in the strings of 57v and 66r?  What is the reason these
strings are present in multiples of 17, and why does this number
pattern rear its ugly head in a few of the other drawings?

Also, as to the dain, daiin, etc. being numerical equivalents in a
code/versus cipher, I can't argue with that assumption, but I do
note that in the string present in 66r, the classic picnic table
appears just before an EVA compound, which I write as a single
character, but may be written as three characters in EVA.  The
locations of the picnic table as a character tend to make me think
that it is a number as opposed to the other alphabetic characters.
Several 0f the characters in 57v also suggest numerical
equivalents, mostly by their position and their rarity.  In fact,
where we would expect numbers versus text in 57v, new characters
are actually introduced that had previously appeared nowhere in
the manuscript.

I need to ask - if the system you're proposing is based on a
number code, and as such the particular character has a dual
equivalent of character/code and number, why was it necessary to
introduce new characters to write numbers?  (I am of course
relying heavily on my own peculiar assumptions here).  To me this
evidence doesn't suggest what you're suggesting.

On a note more true to my own investigation, I would point out
that these strings are very telling as to character
identification.  We would agree that the majority of the
characters are stand-alones, and in the face of this overwhelming
fact, it is prudent to discern that the "compound" characters
presented in such strings are also "stand-alones", or units of
communication.  This is why my character set is not quite what is
presented in the EVA, and why I have called for an overhaul of the
transcription system.  By doing so I realize I'm falling directly
into Nick's argument that the "4o" is a single character, but I
think statistically we'd then have to say that "89" and "oe" were
stand-alones, a step I'm still not willing to take.

Whatever the road this investigation takes, we must eventually
resolve the problem of character identification, as well as the
problem of when and where certain characters appear.  I am hoping
you have some theoretical answers to this problem of number/code
versus number in the text.

GC