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

Re: VMs: Re: RuggWatch

Who's there? Laura Aylward?

I, for one, would like to see some produced text and also a phase two pdf of the research. I have already expressed my opinions. The effect here is that the point attempted to be made by the research tends to be lost in published grandstanding semantics. There is no dispute that gibberish can be structured and repetitive if based on a scheme -- any scheme. Recorded zara scores would do it. So, surely, there is more to the point than that. Rene makes a very fine distinction that I am not quite sure I understand. If I do, the answer is yes, I think the process is worth critique but in perspective I would not give it priority and would make no attempt until all the cards are on the table. I have jumped to the conclusion that it is a matter of input of expected output and feedback for fine tuning. If so, I think it might be worthwhile to see what feedback is required.

Ciao ..... Knox

u1k00 wrote:
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
of freedom.

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
patterns like

.. 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:
unsubscribe vms-list

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

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