[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: VMs: Re: RuggWatch
I believe Gordon was planning on putting some text generated using the method
online. I could produce some for you all to play around with and test if it
would help? I would be interested to see some statistical tests run on it.
Being new to the manuscript, there's only so much research I could do in a
year! But, when I first looked into it I immediately thought - why is everyone
so concerned - surely it?s a hoax. Then I was introduced to the features that
show it cannot be a hoax, the repetitiveness, high structure etc. Okay, I
don?t know the history of the manuscript apart from the bare minimum, but
Gordons method and the results we have found, show that gibberish can be
extremely structured and repetitive. It is not saying outright that the
manuscript is a hoax, but showing that the structure level of the manuscript
is not a good enough argument against the hoax theory - I am not aware of any
other arguments against the hoax theory?
>===== Original Message From vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx =====
> > [Rene:] I believe that it will be difficult to _prove_ that
> > Kelly had nothing to do with the VMs
>Well, if we could decipher the text...
> > [Rene:] I furthermore think that it will not be possible to show
> > that the VMs *could not* have been generated using a Cardan
> > grille, but I am convinced that it should be possible to
> > demonstrate that the method of a Cardan grille does not really
> > explain the complete riddle of how the VMs was created.
>The problem is that the "Cardan grille theory" has too many degrees
>That freedom of course makes it easier to fit the theory to the VMS
>(by opportune table and grille changes and complicated grille
>motions). However it also leaves unexplained *why* would the author
>would have taken all those decisions. In particular, why would he
>chose those prefixes, midfixes, and suffixes (which BTW have lots
>of structure on their own)?
>We are to believe that he invented some clever and complicated tricks,
>with the express intent of reproducing several very subtle features of
>*unencrypted* natural language with meaningful contents (like Zipf's
>law and the local variations in word frequencies); but at the same
>time he allowed many obvious weirdnessess (like the doubled and
>tripled words) that would leave even a naive buyer suspicious. It does
>not make sense...
>The Grille Theory actually makes a prediction that one could test.
>Even if you change the grille after each pass through the table, you
>should get parts of the same sequence of prefixes (combined with
>different midfixes and suffixes) at every pass. EG you should see
> .. olXXX qoYYY arZZZ choWWW ... olAAA qoBBB arCCC choDDD ...
>Ditto for prefixes and suffixes. Has anyone checked this possibility?
>There must be correlation-like tests that one could use to detect
>such repetitions, even if masked by noise...
>To avoid repeating prefix sequences, it would be necessary to move the
>grille in a different sequence at each pass -- e.g. first vertically,
>then horizontally, then skipping seven places at a time, etc. Would
>the author be able to invent fifty different motion schemes, without
>repeating the same sequence even once? Would he be smart enough to
>move the grille at random?
> > [Dennis:] You could easily construct tables of common English
> > prefixes, roots, and suffixes, and then construct grills to
> > generate random English phrases and sentences. An extraterrestrial
> > who could not understand English might use these to generate
> > apparent English sentences, and conclude that English is gibberish
> > - but he would obviously be mistaken!
>All the best,
>To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying: