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

*To*: vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx*Subject*: Re: VMs: NSU review of Rugg (2003)...*From*: Nick Pelling <incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:00:24 +0000*In-reply-to*: <3FE1AFC0.AE5215@cs.keele.ac.uk>*References*: <LOEIKOCEDLMECNLNPIJPIEFOCKAA.djl@montana.com> <200312181031.36592.G.Landini@bham.ac.uk> <3FE19125.550123C4@cs.keele.ac.uk> <200312181207.24742.G.Landini@bham.ac.uk> <5.2.1.1.0.20031218125935.03198b40@pop3.blueyonder.co.uk>*Reply-to*: vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx*Sender*: owner-vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx

As for detecting the "signature" of a particular table, it's statistically

non-trivial. One issue is that you'd need to assume a particular breakdown of

each word into characters, pairs of characters, syllables, or whatever,before

you could begin any statistical test. If the manuscript is a meaningless hoax

containing gibberish, then there may well be wildcards in there, and deliberate

filling-in of pages using more than one table, plus deliberate creation of

unique meaningless labels - I used all these techniques, and more, when trying

to recreate a hoax. It wouldn't be a case of making some assumptions, running a

test, and calculating a p value - I think that there would be few, if any,

tests which could work with those assumptions which were valid.

If the number of tables is large enough (yet the output statistical properties remain constant), the black art of table construction becomes indistinguishable from cryptography anyway. But if the tables are (as you assert) probably few in number, then the re-use of fragments should be statistically detectable, surely?

______________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying: unsubscribe vms-list

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: VMs: NSU review of Rugg (2003)...***From:*Gordon Rugg

**References**:**RE: VMs: Re: Note for Jeff***From:*Don Latham

**Re: VMs: NSU review of Rugg (2003)...***From:*Gabriel Landini

**Re: VMs: NSU review of Rugg (2003)...***From:*Gordon Rugg

**Re: VMs: NSU review of Rugg (2003)...***From:*Gabriel Landini

**Re: VMs: NSU review of Rugg (2003)...***From:*Nick Pelling

**Re: VMs: NSU review of Rugg (2003)...***From:*Gordon Rugg

- Prev by Date:
**Re: VMs: Re: NSU review of Rugg (2003)...** - Next by Date:
**Re: VMs: Re: NSU review of Rugg (2003)...** - Previous by thread:
**Re: VMs: NSU review of Rugg (2003)...** - Next by thread:
**Re: VMs: NSU review of Rugg (2003)...** - Index(es):