(26-10-2025, 04:33 PM)JoJo_Jost wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(26-10-2025, 03:07 PM)Mark Knowles wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Rareness is not a reason for exclusion. It is quite rare to meet someone from Mauritius, but that don't mean they don't exist. The other versions that I mentioned do exist. I think Voynich researchers make a big mistake when they think that rare things can be ignored. Rare features need to be accounted for.

But one can assume a certain distribution of numbers in a certain context. In this case, the botanical/medical context of the 15th century. The number 2 could indeed occur frequently in this context, the number 1 almost never, the number 3 less often, the number 4 even less often, the number 5 possibly (e.g. rose petals and also because of the natural Fibonacci sequence) a tad higher again, and then it should continue to decline. In my opinion, one would like to see such a distribution. But I have seen medical texts from that period, and there was not a single number in them so who knows