Re: VMs: Re: NSU review of Rugg (2003)...

[Nick Pelling <incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Jeff,

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:
unsubscribe vms-list