Hi Nablator,
my impression is that there are at least two differences with Patrick's experiments:
1.As Patrick said, it could be that there are differences in how the mapping to 10 positions is done; I used this method (where i is word position in the range 0..lineLength-1):
pos=1+int(round(9.0*i/float(lineLength-1)))
I am not sure this is exactly what Patrick did, but it appears to be close enough.
2. qo-words are about 16% of all words: accordingly, the qo-line in Patrick's plot averages about 0.16; in your graph, it's about 0.04 (much lower); maybe you are normalizing in a different way? You don't seem to be dividing position counts by the total of words in each position.
my impression is that there are at least two differences with Patrick's experiments:
1.As Patrick said, it could be that there are differences in how the mapping to 10 positions is done; I used this method (where i is word position in the range 0..lineLength-1):
pos=1+int(round(9.0*i/float(lineLength-1)))
I am not sure this is exactly what Patrick did, but it appears to be close enough.
2. qo-words are about 16% of all words: accordingly, the qo-line in Patrick's plot averages about 0.16; in your graph, it's about 0.04 (much lower); maybe you are normalizing in a different way? You don't seem to be dividing position counts by the total of words in each position.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)