17-05-2021, 05:56 AM
Every measurement of a single page is a process that has its inherent inaccuracies. Note that the measurement for a single page is derived from several shots based on small parts of the individual sample. The spread of these shots contributes to the uncertainty of the measurement.
This single measurement is the ratio of two ratios:
(C-14 / C-12) as measured , divided by: (C-14 / C12) for 1950.
This single value is of the order of 0.94 for the various sheets in the Voynich MS.
This single value has an uncertainty or error distribution which can be assumed to be Gaussian in the area of interest.
When computing the calibrated dates, one computes a convolution with the 2-dimension probability density function of the calibration curve. The result is no longer Gaussian at all.
It is the calibrated date that is of interest, and that is used at the end result. I don't quite understand the question from DONJCH in post #25.
Even if the MS is several parts, that we not all produced not at the same time, what would be the time difference? One year? Five years? 25 years?
In the first two cases, combining the results is completely valid.
The book looks consistent enough, from beginning to end, to make a much longer duration rather unlikely.
Now keep in mind that the end result still allows 5% probability that the date is outside the published range. This 5% is considerably greater, in my humble opinion, than the probability that it took well over 5 years to produce this MS.
Furthermore, the results show (to the extent that they can) that the parchment seems to have been acquired within a short time span.
This is all about statistics, and one should not mix in things that have a very small likelihood of being correct.
This single measurement is the ratio of two ratios:
(C-14 / C-12) as measured , divided by: (C-14 / C12) for 1950.
This single value is of the order of 0.94 for the various sheets in the Voynich MS.
This single value has an uncertainty or error distribution which can be assumed to be Gaussian in the area of interest.
When computing the calibrated dates, one computes a convolution with the 2-dimension probability density function of the calibration curve. The result is no longer Gaussian at all.
It is the calibrated date that is of interest, and that is used at the end result. I don't quite understand the question from DONJCH in post #25.
Even if the MS is several parts, that we not all produced not at the same time, what would be the time difference? One year? Five years? 25 years?
In the first two cases, combining the results is completely valid.
The book looks consistent enough, from beginning to end, to make a much longer duration rather unlikely.
Now keep in mind that the end result still allows 5% probability that the date is outside the published range. This 5% is considerably greater, in my humble opinion, than the probability that it took well over 5 years to produce this MS.
Furthermore, the results show (to the extent that they can) that the parchment seems to have been acquired within a short time span.
This is all about statistics, and one should not mix in things that have a very small likelihood of being correct.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)