![]() |
|
Currier A/B split is not what we thought it was! - Printable Version +- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja) +-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html) +--- Forum: Analysis of the text (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-41.html) +--- Thread: Currier A/B split is not what we thought it was! (/thread-5710.html) |
RE: Currier A/B split is not what we thought it was! - Labyrinthinesecurity - 05-05-2026 (05-05-2026, 10:56 AM)oshfdk wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(05-05-2026, 10:07 AM)Labyrinthinesecurity wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To me, the most intriguing finding is that these two signals are completely orthogonal. Within the Herbal section, the correlation between the cho/che ratio and the d/l ratio is essentially zero. Knowing the switch state of a folio tells you nothing about its d/l ratio, and vice versa. They are independent dimensions of the manuscript's structure, driven by separate mechanisms that happen to partially align in Currier's coarse classification. The proposed structure to sustain the A/B split is a 3-layers construct: a template system, a switch modulating the use of these templates (per folio), and an independent d/l dimension. RE: Currier A/B split is not what we thought it was! - oshfdk - 05-05-2026 RE: Currier A/B split is not what we thought it was! - dashstofsk - 05-05-2026 RE: Currier A/B split is not what we thought it was! - Labyrinthinesecurity - 05-05-2026 RE: Currier A/B split is not what we thought it was! - Labyrinthinesecurity - 05-05-2026 RE: Currier A/B split is not what we thought it was! - Rafal - 05-05-2026 RE: Currier A/B split is not what we thought it was! - oshfdk - 05-05-2026 RE: Currier A/B split is not what we thought it was! - Labyrinthinesecurity - 05-05-2026 RE: Currier A/B split is not what we thought it was! - Labyrinthinesecurity - 05-05-2026 RE: Currier A/B split is not what we thought it was! - rikforto - 05-05-2026 |