Re: Re: VMs: Further investigatio of folio f1r

["Jeff" <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

From: "Jan" <hurychj@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 06 April 2004 13:56


> Hello Dennis,
>
> ======= At 2004-04-05, 22:33:00 you wrote: =======
>
> > Don't forget, EVA was never intended to represent one grapheme with one
> transcribed character, and it doesn't.  EVA /iin/ is a case in point.
>
> Of course, but would another system show graph so similar to single
character
> curve of many languages (not only with Latin) ? Maybe, I do not know.
>

Yes I saw this too. You need to run a lot of different tests though to see
the structure fully. It took me months to put together the necessary tools.

> > It's interesting that Latin comes close but not >English and the others.
>
>  Well, it is not perfect closeness, but the differences may be easily
attributed
> to the "crudeness" of the method, which letter frequency certainly is.
However
> what counts most is how the Latin curve follows the VM curve - the English
for
> instance crosses the line several times, having apparently altogether
different
> trend.
>

I found Italian a very good match but never tried properly against Latin.
English, French and German failed.

> > As D'Imperio noted, others saw long ago that the  single-character
> distributions of Voynichese are close  to those of many European languages
> (though your study is the most complete one).
>
> Yes, this  "hyperbolic characte" of the curve is obvious for all natural
languages
> and they even do not  differ too much  - percentwise -  but what differs
greatly
> is the order of letters (for different languages).  Of course I also  made
the
> corresponding table and subsequent "conversion" of the VM into "Latin"
characters.
> Needless to say, I did not get too far :-).
>

You are currently looking at it in the wrong way. Try group analysis!

>  > Those early researchers quickly found that they could not solve
Voynichese as
>  >monoalphabetic substitution.
>
> Correction:  "as single monoalphabetic substitution" -   the "shortness"
of
> "words" shows there must be at least another encoding present. All that of
> course only if we take the "sign-for-letter" conversion, which as you
rightly
> said may not be the case at all.
>
> >The digraph distributions >are the ones that are really unusual, and
those are
> >reflected in the second-order entropy.
>
> But bi-letter substitution cipher (say Vigenere table, where we replace
the
> letter by its two coordinates) may have something similar and
transposition
> cipher has letters so mixed up that original "digraphs" simply dissappear
. . .
>

Nope I tried exactly that and it don't fly. Feel free to try yourself I may
have missed something but the structure of word endings in the VMS makes
this difficult in the extreme.

Regards

Jeff

> Best regards.
> Jan
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/electronic2/ohlas/VM/ Voynich Manuscript
>

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