23-07-2026, 04:31 AM
I appreciate the point about the handwriting variations.
But we need to distinguish between two different types of variation. The variations I am referring to are systematic, context dependent.
Consider f2r, which is clear written with careful penmanship.
Let us start with a simple, clear example. The first word on 5.th row of f2r, the three "o" like symbols are interest of the dicussion.
They are not identical- the first one is written in one way the second in another and the third -another. All three "read" as "o" s from EVA and all the statistics behind .
I believe these variations encode additional meaning- this is not handwriting variation it is too systematic.
I am not claiming to have solved this. I am pointing a pattern that deserves investigation. The variation of these "o" glyphs is not a flaw in the text, but a feature in the system.
But we need to distinguish between two different types of variation. The variations I am referring to are systematic, context dependent.
Consider f2r, which is clear written with careful penmanship.
Let us start with a simple, clear example. The first word on 5.th row of f2r, the three "o" like symbols are interest of the dicussion.
They are not identical- the first one is written in one way the second in another and the third -another. All three "read" as "o" s from EVA and all the statistics behind .
I believe these variations encode additional meaning- this is not handwriting variation it is too systematic.
I am not claiming to have solved this. I am pointing a pattern that deserves investigation. The variation of these "o" glyphs is not a flaw in the text, but a feature in the system.