[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: VMs: Re: NSU review of Rugg (2003)...
At 18:41 17/12/2003 +0000, Jeff wrote:
Gordon is merely using a method along similar lines as mine, although with
the intent of proving a hoax rather than finding a decipherment.
While it's true that the VMs-like *output* of both your approaches are
similar, aren't your *methodologies* (ie your approaches to the problem)
different in almost every other respect?
Also: isn't there a (big picture) flaw in both approaches? Aren't they
equivalent to trying to prove English is a hoax by examining computer poetry?
Or, in logical terms, isn't the implication arrow pointing in the wrong
direction? That is, if I can write a program that can generate nonsense
that could pass for Voynichese (and which I can make a better fit by
increasing the complexity of my model), could that ever mean that all
Voynichese is nonsense?
Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying: