Cretan Hieroglyphics Questions--Please Help...
IWCFVB
archaeology/epigraphy enthusiast. I have a few questions about Cretan
Hieroglyphics that I was hoping one of you might be able to answer. If you
cannot, I would appreciate it if you would direct me to someone who can.
Generally, what is the state of decipherment of this script? Has a corpus
and/or concordance ever been compiled before? Finally, what internal analysis,
if any, has been completed on the script? If none, what is stopping people
from conducting such analyses?
A lot of questions, I know, but, as I said, I am an *enthusiast*. :-) Any
direction you could give me as to important articles to read on the subject
matter would also be greatly appreciated.
Thanks all.
-Jeff
grapheus
Nice to see your enthusiasm, Jeff !..
Here are a few answers to your questions :
First, one has to distinguish the "Cretan Hieroglyphic Script" and the
"Phaistos Disk Script". There are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT scripts,
written by two different peoples, Cretans on one hand, Cycladic
Proto-Ionians on the other. Moreover, the unique "hieroglyphic"
inscription of the Phaistos Disk has been entirely deciphered by J.
Faucounau, who has brought DECISIVE PROOFS that his decipherment was
correct, even if some scholars still want to "ignore" these proofs...
You may find his decipherment in the books he has written (Alas in
French!) "Le dechiffrement du Disque de Phaistos" and "Les
Proto-Ioniens : Histoire d'un Peuple oublié" (One may find them in any
e-bookshop selling French books, for instance <http://www.amazon.fr> )
In comparison, the documents concerning the "Cretan Hieroglyphic
Script" are very short, what explains that they are undeciphered. The
longest inscriptions have been carefully published in a book (also in
French!) entitled "Corpus Hieroglyphicarum Inscriptionum Cretae" (
C.H.I.C.) by J.P. Olivier and L. Godart. This book corresponds to the
"Etudes Cretoises n° 31" and one may find it (if still available) at
"De Boccard Editions", 11 rue de Medicis, F-75006 Paris.
As I said, the CHIC does'n't contain the shortest inscriptions (of one
or two signs). For these, one has to look at the A. Evans' "Scripta
Minoa I" (in English) and at the several volumes of the "Corpus der
Minoishen und Mykenischen Siegel" (in German) by F. Matz and his
successors.
As for an "internal analysis" of the documents in Cretan Hieroglyphic
Script, don't expect too much of it !..
Good luck and Happy New Year !
grapheus
hippo
"IWCFVB" wrote in message
Jeff, we generally recognize three scripts, the script found on the Phaistos
disk, linear A and linear B. Both of these later are technically syllabaries
not hieroglyphics. Linear B is almost completely deciphered and known to
have been an early form of Greek. It was also used on the Greek mainland and
there are several good books on the decipherment process. Search under
Michael Ventris. Liner B is not yet deciphered but is suspected to have not
been Greek or perhaps not even an Indo-European language. We think that
because only about a third of the syllable sounds are common to the Greek of
linear B which evolved from it (the script not the language). The argument
is that if it was a similar language the sounds would have been more
interchangeable much as German and English have similar syllable sounds.
Since we have sound values for a third of Linear A syllable sounds,
substitutions for Indo-European languages have not been successful where one
would expect them to be such as in the case endings of nouns. The Phaistos
disk may be hieroglyphic. Many have claimed to have deciphered it but there
is no agreement within the scientific community. It has been postulated that
is was not native to Crete but imported from elsewhere and therefore
intrusive. -the Troll
grapheus
> "IWCFVB" wrote in message
>
> > Hi, my name is Jeff. I am a first-year medical student and
> > archaeology/epigraphy enthusiast. I have a few questions about Cretan
> > Hieroglyphics that I was hoping one of you might be able to answer. If you
> > cannot, I would appreciate it if you would direct me to someone who can.
> > Generally, what is the state of decipherment of this script? Has a corpus
> > and/or concordance ever been compiled before? Finally, what internal analysis,
> > if any, has been completed on the script? If none, what is stopping people
> > from conducting such analyses?
> >
> > A lot of questions, I know, but, as I said, I am an *enthusiast*. :-) Any
> > direction you could give me as to important articles to read on the subject
> > matter would also be greatly appreciated.
Don't pay attention to Hippo's message, Jeff, which has been written
by someone not knowing correctly the question !.. (See my criticisms
hereafter)
> Jeff, we generally recognize three scripts, the script found on the Phaistos
> disk, linear A and linear B.
Wrong !.. There are 3 Cretan scripts, plus the Phaistos Disk's script
which is "Hieroglyphic" but not Cretan !..
Two of the Cretan scripts are "linear", with signs coming from
"hieroglyphs", but which had become simplified, so that the original
hieroglyph cannot be guessed, even if some scholars have supposed for
instance that the sign with a SA-value was coming from a hieroglyph
representing "a fish"... These two "linear" scripts are called Linear
A and Linear B.
But Hippo has forgotten to mention the "Cretan Hieroglyphic Script",
which is the DIRECT ANCESTOR of the Linear A and B scripts. For
instance, in THIS script, there does exist a perfectly recognizable
"FISH"...
> Both of these later are technically syllabaries
> not hieroglyphics. Linear B is almost completely deciphered and known to
> have been an early form of Greek. It was also used on the Greek mainland and
> there are several good books on the decipherment process. Search under
> Michael Ventris.
This is correct, but has nothing to do with the "Cretan Hieroglyphic
Script" !..
> Liner B is not yet deciphered but is suspected to have not
> been Greek or perhaps not even an Indo-European language.
Lapsus calami from Hippo ; Read "Linear A".
>We think that
> because only about a third of the syllable sounds are common to the Greek of
> linear B which evolved from it (the script not the language).
This is untrue !.. Linear B is NOT coming from Linear A. Both are
coming from Cretan Hieroglyphic, maybe via an unknown "Proto-Linear"
script...
>The argument
> is that if it was a similar language the sounds would have been more
> interchangeable much as German and English have similar syllable sounds.
> Since we have sound values for a third of Linear A syllable sounds,
> substitutions for Indo-European languages have not been successful where one
> would expect them to be such as in the case endings of nouns.
This has nothing to do with Cretan Hieroglyphic !..
> The Phaistos
> disk may be hieroglyphic.
NO !.. It uses "Hieroglyphs" (i.e. recognizable characters, plants,
or objects). But it has NOTHING to do with the other Cretan Scripts,
in particular with the "Cretan Hieroglyphic Script", which uses also
"Hieroglyphs" !..
>Many have claimed to have deciphered it but there
> is no agreement within the scientific community.
This is (almost) correct. About 40 different "decipherments" have been
proposed since the discovery of the Disk in 1908. But there is ONLY
ONE - the one I quoted, i.e. the "Proto-Ionic Solution" - which has
been DEFINITELY PROVED (by more than 30 pieces of evidence!).
Scholars are now separated in two parties : the ones who believe in
the Proto-Ionic Solution, and the ones who are still clinging to their
initial scepticism and have chosen by DOGMATISM to "ignore" the PROOFS
that this solution is correct !.. None of the last ones has been able
to demonstrate that the PROOFS are false !...
> It has been postulated that
> is was not native to Crete but imported from elsewhere and therefore
> intrusive.
Yes !.. The whole history of the Disk is now fully known, in the frame
of the "Proto-Ionian Theory" , and all its "mysteries" have been
explained...
But, once again, there is no link between the Disk and the Cretan
Hieroglyphic Script !..
grapheus
IWCFVB
>Here are a few answers to your questions :
>First, one has to distinguish the "Cretan Hieroglyphic Script" and the
>"Phaistos Disk Script". There are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT scripts,
Right. This I know. I've got the basics down. :-)
>written by two different peoples, Cretans on one hand, Cycladic
>Proto-Ionians on the other. Moreover, the unique "hieroglyphic"
>inscription of the Phaistos Disk has been entirely deciphered by J.
>Faucounau, who has brought DECISIVE PROOFS that his
>decipherment was
>correct, even if some scholars still want to "ignore" these proofs...
>
Most scholars seem to disagree with this so-called "decipherment", so that
certainly gives me pause to think. But that's not really the topic at hand...
>You may find his decipherment in the books he has written (Alas in
>French!) "Le dechiffrement du Disque de Phaistos" and "Les
>Proto-Ioniens : Histoire d'un Peuple oublié" (One may find them in any
>e-bookshop selling French books, for instance <http://www.amazon.fr> )
That's okay, it's the Cretan Hieroglyphic Script I'm primarily interested in.
>In comparison, the documents concerning the "Cretan Hieroglyphic
>Script" are very short, what explains that they are undeciphered. The
>longest inscriptions have been carefully published in a book (also in
>French!) entitled "Corpus
>Hieroglyphicarum Inscriptionum Cretae" (
>C.H.I.C.) by J.P. Olivier and L. Godart. This book corresponds to the
>"Etudes Cretoises n° 31" and one may find it (if still available) at
>"De Boccard Editions", 11 rue de Medicis, F-75006 Paris.
What is "Etudes..." and "De Boccard..."? Must I write them to obtain the CHIC?
Or might a university have a copy?
Also, stinks, I don't speak French! Though at least I can still understand the
undeciphered pictures as well as anyone I suppose. :-)
>As I said, the CHIC does'n't contain the shortest inscriptions (of one
>or two signs). For these, one has to look at the A. Evans' "Scripta
>Minoa I" (in English) and at the several volumes of the "Corpus der
>Minoishen und Mykenischen Siegel" (in German) by F. Matz and his
>successors.
Ah, thank goodness. Ich spreche Deutsch. :-)
So between these three publications, is that comprehensive for the Cretan
Hieroglyphic corpus? Do any of these contain a concordance of any sort?
>As for an "internal analysis" of the documents in Cretan Hieroglyphic
>Script, don't expect too much of it !..
Really? Why is that? Not even frequency analysis or such?
>Good luck and Happy New Year !
Thanks so much! And Happy New Year to you, too!
-Jeff
Jim Webster
"grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
news:337ae51f.04010...@posting.google.com...
> This is (almost) correct. About 40 different "decipherments" have been
> proposed since the discovery of the Disk in 1908. But there is ONLY
> ONE - the one I quoted, i.e. the "Proto-Ionic Solution" - which has
> been DEFINITELY PROVED (by more than 30 pieces of evidence!).
> Scholars are now separated in two parties : the ones who believe in
> the Proto-Ionic Solution, and the ones who are still clinging to their
> initial scepticism and have chosen by DOGMATISM to "ignore" the PROOFS
> that this solution is correct !.. None of the last ones has been able
> to demonstrate that the PROOFS are false !...
and this situation will last with academics happily attacking each other
until another large example of the same script is discovered. At which point
they will be able to read it, to general rejoicing, or they will fail,
probably to equally large numbers of people saying "we told you so".
Jim Webster
grapheus
> >Nice to see your enthusiasm, Jeff !..
> >Here are a few answers to your questions :
> >First, one has to distinguish the "Cretan Hieroglyphic Script" and the
> >"Phaistos Disk Script". There are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT scripts,
>
> Right. This I know. I've got the basics down. :-)
>
> >written by two different peoples, Cretans on one hand, Cycladic
> >Proto-Ionians on the other. Moreover, the unique "hieroglyphic"
> >inscription of the Phaistos Disk has been entirely deciphered by J.
> >Faucounau, who has brought DECISIVE PROOFS that his
> >decipherment was
> >correct, even if some scholars still want to "ignore" these proofs...
> >
>
> Most scholars seem to disagree with this so-called "decipherment",
Yes!. But NONE of these "sceptical" scholars has seriously studied the
*PROOFS* in favour of the Proto-Ionic Solution !.. And of course NO
ONE has "demolished" a single of them !...
In fact, the only "scolarly criticism" which has been published is
ludicrous : it contains a lot of valueless remarks but does'n't say a
word about the proofs !...
> so that
> certainly gives me pause to think. But that's not really the topic at hand...
>
> >You may find his decipherment in the books he has written (Alas in
> >French!) "Le dechiffrement du Disque de Phaistos" and "Les
> >Proto-Ioniens : Histoire d'un Peuple oublié" (One may find them in any
> >e-bookshop selling French books, for instance <http://www.amazon.fr> )
>
> That's okay, it's the Cretan Hieroglyphic Script I'm primarily interested in.
>
> >In comparison, the documents concerning the "Cretan Hieroglyphic
> >Script" are very short, what explains that they are undeciphered. The
> >longest inscriptions have been carefully published in a book (also in
> >French!) entitled "Corpus
> >Hieroglyphicarum Inscriptionum Cretae" (
> >C.H.I.C.) by J.P. Olivier and L. Godart. This book corresponds to the
> >"Etudes Cretoises n° 31" and one may find it (if still available) at
> >"De Boccard Editions", 11 rue de Medicis, F-75006 Paris.
>
> What is "Etudes..." and "De Boccard..."?
"Etudes.." is the name of the Collection. "De Boccard" is the Editor
of this Collection.
> Must I write them to obtain the CHIC?
> Or might a university have a copy?
>
You may do both : writing to De Boccard if you want to buy the book,
or looking at it in a University Library.
Maybe it would be good to begin by the second step...
> Also, stinks, I don't speak French! Though at least I can still understand the
> undeciphered pictures as well as anyone I suppose. :-)
>
Yes. The French text is not very important in this case...
> >As I said, the CHIC does'n't contain the shortest inscriptions (of one
> >or two signs). For these, one has to look at the A. Evans' "Scripta
> >Minoa I" (in English) and at the several volumes of the "Corpus der
> >Minoishen und Mykenischen Siegel" (in German) by F. Matz and his
> >successors.
>
> Ah, thank goodness. Ich spreche Deutsch. :-)
That's fine. The CMS-volumes are pretty expensive, but you may find
them in an University Library.
>
> So between these three publications, is that comprehensive for the Cretan
> Hieroglyphic corpus?
YES.
>Do any of these contain a concordance of any sort?
The CHIC, yes .
>
> >As for an "internal analysis" of the documents in Cretan Hieroglyphic
> >Script, don't expect too much of it !..
>
> Really? Why is that? Not even frequency analysis or such?
The inscriptions are a lot too short !..
A kind of "internal analysis" has been done by A. Evans in "Scripta
Minoa 1"
I hope this will help you !
grapheus
grapheus
You are perfectly RIGHT !..
But it shows how DOGMATIC are to-day scholars !.. When *PROOFS* are
there, the SCIENTIFIC attitude is to SERIOUSLY STUDY them. If this
examination shows that all these proofs are wrong, the theory (here :
the decipherment) has to be rejected. BUT ONLY AFTER the negative
result of the examination...
Here, we have to deal with a handful of so-called "scholars" who
REFUSE to study the to-day existing proofs. They ask for "a second
large example of the same script" !.. It's like nineteen century
scholars asking for a photo of the Earth from Space, to be convinced
that the Earth is a sphere !... Happily, nineteen century scholars
were less dogmatic than most of the present ones !!!!
Regards
grapheus
O.H.
This notice for everyone, who takes interest in my successful internal
analysis of the Phaistos disc (Phaistos disk) :
Due to some permanent dispositions from my internet firm; alas, all my
links are in vain !, unless you exchange the "WWW" with a "HOME",
for instance:
not : http://www.gvdnet.dk/~hagen/phaistos.htm
but : http://home.gvdnet.dk/~hagen/phaistos.htm
http://home.gvdnet.dk/~hagen/classes.htm
Sincerely
Ole Hagen
IWCFVB
-Jeff
Bobby D. Bryant
> Looks like my question has started a little debate...
Or just brought out the kooks.
You should give a bit of thought to what it would actually take to
decipher a string of symbols with absolutely no context. The reason you
get such vociferous arguments over which decipherment is correct is that
only certified k00ks think it is even possible.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Chris Camfield
to a conclusion.
Jim Webster
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.01.07....@mail.utexas.edu...
That is why you need to discover a second long section of text. If this can
be read using the current decipher techniques then they are probably good.
If it cannot, then back to the drawing board
Jim Webster
grapheus
It's nice to see how IGNARROGANTS are quick to call KOOKS people who
know a problem better than themselves !...
The "thought to what it would actually take to decipher" the Phaistos
Disk has already been given by the mathematician Claude Shannon. The
required length of the text -IF ONE STARTS FROM THE CORRECT HYPOTHESES
!- has to be of about 225 signs. There are 241, Bobby !..
The real problem is that a 241 signs-length is NOT ENOUGH for an
INTERNAL VERIFICATION, so that one cannot be sure that he has used the
correct hypotheses !.. But in the case of the ONLY PROVED
decipherment, i.e. "the Proto-Ionian Solution", the VERIFICATION could
come FROM OUTSIDE.
Got more objections, Your Honour ?
grapheus
grapheus
> *My god!* The nerve of those scientists, wanting more hard data before coming
> to a conclusion.
Nerve ?.. Dogmatic stupidity and voluntary blindness would be more
appropriate words !..
grapheus
Bobby D. Bryant
> Here, we have to deal with a handful of so-called "scholars" who REFUSE
> to study the to-day existing proofs. They ask for "a second large
> example of the same script" !.. It's like nineteen century scholars
> asking for a photo of the Earth from Space, to be convinced that the
> Earth is a sphere !
No, it's called "hypothesis testing", which is precisely what separates
science from pseudoscience.
Without that kind of sanity check you might as well claim that the
Phaistos Disk is a grocery list, because there's no one to say otherwise.
Hagen
Luckily then that the inscription consist of not 241 signs, but 244
one's !
Call it a revolutionary difference. Have a look :
FALSE : Side A , 123 sign in 31 sign-groups. Side B, 119 signs in 30
sign-groups ?
TRUE: Side A 124 / 31 and side B 120 / 30
http://home.gvdnet.dk/~hagen/phaistos.htm
Normally this is called a " break-through".
Moreover I did a crucial demonstration of the value of my hypothesis
by setting up, the whole lot, in a "Gnomonical arrangement".
http://home.gvdnet.dk/~hagen/fig13b.htm
This inscription is of no doubt a dual system of mathematical
observans. It's not a grammatical construction !
And the so-called "hypothesis testing", which secures "Die Strassen
Raubern" not to look like the kOOks, which we, all are, after all,
shall finally agree.
Sicerely
Ole Hagen
grapheus
With this remark, you are just showing that you have NOT examined the
PROOFS that do exist for the "Proto-Ionic Solution" !.. They are
precisely SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS TESTS !...
I challenge you to show that the "astronomical proof", for instance,
-testing the existence of a Proto-Ionic-speaking people in the Aegean
during the Early Bronze Age- is wrong !.. I bet you can't.
grapheus
grapheus
You are crazy !.. Anybody may VERIFY on the original that there are
122 signs on Side A + one which has been deterorated or voluntarily
obliterated , and 119 on Side B !..
It is with LIES of this kind that people of good faith believe that
the Phaistos Disk is the realm of the KOOKS !...
> Normally this is called a " break-through".
At the best, it is AN ILLUSION, Ole !..
Best Wishes, anyway !
grapheus
Bobby D. Bryant
001 002003 004 005006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 012015 016017 018
019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 012 030 031032 033 034 035 036
037 012 021 038 039 040 041 042 028 043044 045046 047 004 025048017 049
050 051052 009 026 053017 054 055 056 057 058059052 004 060052 004 061
062063 064065 066067052 025 068 069 011 035 070 025071072 028 055
073074046 075 041041041076 077 078078076076076076061 025079065 080075 081
082017 083 068 084085086087 088 004 089090 091046 092 028 009 020 026 038
012 093 094 021 095096087065 097098 031032099 009 100 101 028 102 028 103
019 104 028 105 004 019 108 021 106107109 110 009 111 004 019 095112 113
114 115 031032099 116 117 118006 094 116 076076076076076076076 107 120 107
078078076076076076 028 115 035 121122 036 031119 123 026 031032099 124
095096087065 097098 028 009 097125 026 038 012 093 109 111 021 126 108025
041041041127046 116 094017 026 031032099 028 035 128129 026 130 009 128112
068 126 011 131 132 133 061 121134 135 026 094087 136 028 012 030 137 081
109017 084138 141 128139017 140 142 012 094 007 031032099 028 143 144 009
025048 021 145146052 106107109 084138 039 111 009 147 140 009 028 035
128129 026 130 009 025148 068 084085086087 045046 011 035 070 149 135 021
150151 152 004 029 153 154 111 155 073156046 061 062 157 011 035 158 050
066159086 160017 080075 081161 142 035 162 033 055 028 039 026 163148046
116 033 055 004 026 164 165 045 165 166046 014090 035 167 140 168 028 135
081 169170086 004 035 131 025171 055 026 172 009 068 062 173 011 031032046
033 034 143174 012 175 028 176 135 140 177
Jacques Guy
>[added sci.lang, in case anyone wants to have a go at an impossible puzzle.]
> On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 02:22:13 -0800, grapheus wrote:
> > [snip the usual rant]
And now--and I am not making this up--he wrote:
> 001 002003 004 005006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 012015 016017 018
> 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 012 030 031032 033 034 035 036
> 037 012 021 038 039 040 041 042 028 043044 045046 047 004 025048017 049
> 050 051052 009 026 053017 054 055 056 057 058059052 004 060052 004 061
> 062063 064065 066067052 025 068 069 011 035 070 025071072 028 055
> 073074046 075 041041041076 077 078078076076076076061 025079065 080075 081
> 082017 083 068 084085086087 088 004 089090 091046 092 028 009 020 026 038
> 012 093 094 021 095096087065 097098 031032099 009 100 101 028 102 028 103
> 019 104 028 105 004 019 108 021 106107109 110 009 111 004 019 095112 113
> 114 115 031032099 116 117 118006 094 116 076076076076076076076 107 120 107
> 078078076076076076 028 115 035 121122 036 031119 123 026 031032099 124
> 095096087065 097098 028 009 097125 026 038 012 093 109 111 021 126 108025
> 041041041127046 116 094017 026 031032099 028 035 128129 026 130 009 128112
> 068 126 011 131 132 133 061 121134 135 026 094087 136 028 012 030 137 081
> 109017 084138 141 128139017 140 142 012 094 007 031032099 028 143 144 009
> 025048 021 145146052 106107109 084138 039 111 009 147 140 009 028 035
> 128129 026 130 009 025148 068 084085086087 045046 011 035 070 149 135 021
> 150151 152 004 029 153 154 111 155 073156046 061 062 157 011 035 158 050
> 066159086 160017 080075 081161 142 035 162 033 055 028 039 026 163148046
> 116 033 055 004 026 164 165 045 165 166046 014090 035 167 140 168 028 135
> 081 169170086 004 035 131 025171 055 026 172 009 068 062 173 011 031032046
> 033 034 143174 012 175 028 176 135 140 177
011 342 380 116 002 276 122 027. However, 012 076 228 127 490 004 004
178 and,
as 786 003 054 068 078 perceptively remarked in his 237 122 089 456 349
193:
"011 830 912 243 125 542 363 627 125 019 930 276 286 285 190 309 242 254
098 056 058 008 202". My opinion is that 452 087 625 672 209 416.
Hope this helps.
grapheus
So what ?...
Are you able to READ WHAT IS WRITTEN ?.. I repeat it, for you alone :
"The required length is - IF ONE START FROM THE CORRECT HYPOTHESES -
... etc."
Give the CORRECT HYPOTHESES, and your coded message will be deciphered
!.. But don't expect me to spend weeks or years, like J. Faucounau
did (about 7 years, he says) to find the CORRECT HYPOTHESES by myself
!...
grapheus
Bobby D. Bryant
> So what ?...
So you can't read a nonesuch text in an unknown writing system, let alone
in an unknown language.
grapheus
> > So what ?...
> So you can't read a nonesuch text in an unknown writing system, let alone
> in an unknown language.
Are you really THAT STUPID ?..
What do you want to demonstrate ?.. That is is impossible without
spending months or years of complex statistical calculations, to
decipher a 241 signs text of an unknown language, written in an
unknown writing system ?..
NOBODY WOULD DENY IT, except maybe some fools who pretend to have
decipher the Phaistos Disk in a few hours !...
But I repeat : SO WHAT ?...
Because what you are saying has NOTHING TO DO with WHAT I WROTE !...
PLEASE, READ AGAIN !...
grapheus
Bobby D. Bryant
> On Th, 08 Jan 2004 19:54/06 PST Booby D. Bryant wrote :
>
>> > So what ?...
>
>> So you can't read a nonesuch text in an unknown writing system, let
>> alone in an unknown language.
>
> Are you really THAT STUPID ?..
> What do you want to demonstrate ?.. That is is impossible without
> spending months or years of complex statistical calculations, to
> decipher a 241 signs text of an unknown language, written in an unknown
> writing system ?..
Pray tell, precisely what "complex statistical calculations" are you going
to spend months or years on, for a string of 241 symbols, in the age of
desktop supercomputers?
> NOBODY WOULD DENY IT, except maybe some fools who pretend to have
> decipher the Phaistos Disk in a few hours !...
>
> But I repeat : SO WHAT ?...
I'm just trying to convince the non-k00k lurkers that deciphering a
nonesuch text written in an unknown language with an unknown writing
system is not possible, barring bilingual texts or the kind of strong
contextual clues (and other luck) we had for Linear B.
> Because what you are saying has NOTHING TO DO with WHAT I WROTE !...
> PLEASE, READ AGAIN !...
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
grapheus
> On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 04:11:15 -0800, grapheus wrote:
>
> > On Th, 08 Jan 2004 19:54/06 PST Booby D. Bryant wrote :
> >
> >> > So what ?...
>
> >> So you can't read a nonesuch text in an unknown writing system, let
> >> alone in an unknown language.
> >
> > Are you really THAT STUPID ?..
> > What do you want to demonstrate ?.. That is is impossible without
> > spending months or years of complex statistical calculations, to
> > decipher a 241 signs text of an unknown language, written in an unknown
> > writing system ?..
>
> Pray tell, precisely what "complex statistical calculations" are you going
> to spend months or years on, for a string of 241 symbols, in the age of
> desktop supercomputers?
>
>
> > NOBODY WOULD DENY IT, except maybe some fools who pretend to have
> > decipher the Phaistos Disk in a few hours !...
> >
> > But I repeat : SO WHAT ?...
>
> I'm just trying to convince the non-k00k lurkers that deciphering a
> nonesuch text written in an unknown language with an unknown writing
> system is not possible, barring bilingual texts or the kind of strong
> contextual clues (and other luck) we had for Linear B.
You so-called "demonstration" is BASED UPON NOTHING, but a
PRECONCEIVED IDEA of yours : "As me, Bobby D. Bryant, a super-genius,
I have not been able to find THE solution of the problem, it is
"impossible" to solve it !.." What an ARROGANCE !...
I repeat what I wrote : 1)- Of course, it is not possible to decipher
the Phaistos Disk "at first glanze" . 2)- But is it "impossible", as
you pretend ?.. The mathematician Cl. Shannon has DEMONSTRATED that
the answer is NO *if* one uses the correct starting hypotheses
concerning script and language. And another mathematician, J.
Faucounau, has done it, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE NUMEROUS *PROOFS* he
has discovered that the Proto-Ionic Solution was THE solution...
And don't call him a kook !.. He has spent 7 years SEARCHING FOR THE
"CORRECT STARTING HYPOTHESES", and -perfectly knowing that it was not
possible to be sure that the Proto-Ionic Solution was correct FROM THE
DISK's DATA ALONE- spent 25 years in search of EXTERNAL EVIDENCE !...
If you want to contradict me, LOOK FIRST at the EVIDENCE, and *ONLY
IF* you are able to DEMONSTRATE that THIS EVIDENCE is not valid, come
back into the discussion !..
But I have to tell you that until now, NOBODY has shown that a single
PROOF was wrong, and, although you believe to be a SUPER-GENIUS, I bet
anything you want that you will NOT SUCCEED neither !...
grapheus
Jim Webster
iscussion !..
>
> But I have to tell you that until now, NOBODY has shown that a single
> PROOF was wrong, and, although you believe to be a SUPER-GENIUS, I bet
> anything you want that you will NOT SUCCEED neither !...
>
With a single comparatively short text it is not difficult to produce a
potential translation. Especially when you have a degree of freedom as to
which language the text is written in.
The current front runner could well be correct, but the proper test of a
translation system is not internal consistancy but whether it can then
translate a second long text. Success here normally convinces doubters,
failure means that it is back to the drawing board
Jim Webster
Peter T. Daniels
There isn't any "current front-runner," since absolutely nothing is
known about where the P.D. came from, which might give a hint as to what
to try comparing it with.
As opposed to the Indus Valley script, where the front-runner certainly
is some form of Dravidian, for several good and converging reasons.
Grapheus/Faucounau doesn't understand that nothing external to a
language can "prove" whether a decipherment is valid. Only consistent
results with other texts from the same corpus can do that -- and there
aren't any.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Bobby D. Bryant
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:<pan.2004.01.09....@mail.utexas.edu>...
>> On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 04:11:15 -0800, grapheus wrote:
>>
>> > On Th, 08 Jan 2004 19:54/06 PST Booby D. Bryant wrote :
>> >
>> >> > So what ?...
>>
>> >> So you can't read a nonesuch text in an unknown writing system, let
>> >> alone in an unknown language.
>> >
>> > Are you really THAT STUPID ?..
>> > What do you want to demonstrate ?.. That is is impossible without
>> > spending months or years of complex statistical calculations, to
>> > decipher a 241 signs text of an unknown language, written in an
>> > unknown writing system ?..
>>
>> Pray tell, precisely what "complex statistical calculations" are you
>> going to spend months or years on, for a string of 241 symbols, in the
>> age of desktop supercomputers?
Hey, you forgot to answer that part.
>> > NOBODY WOULD DENY IT, except maybe some fools who pretend to have
>> > decipher the Phaistos Disk in a few hours !...
>> >
>> > But I repeat : SO WHAT ?...
>>
>> I'm just trying to convince the non-k00k lurkers that deciphering a
>> nonesuch text written in an unknown language with an unknown writing
>> system is not possible, barring bilingual texts or the kind of strong
>> contextual clues (and other luck) we had for Linear B.
>
> You so-called "demonstration" is BASED UPON NOTHING, but a PRECONCEIVED
> IDEA of yours : "As me, Bobby D. Bryant, a super-genius, I have not
> been able to find THE solution of the problem, it is "impossible" to
> solve it !.." What an ARROGANCE !...
>
> I repeat what I wrote : 1)- Of course, it is not possible to decipher
> the Phaistos Disk "at first glanze" . 2)- But is it "impossible", as
> you pretend ?.. The mathematician Cl. Shannon has DEMONSTRATED that the
> answer is NO *if* one uses the correct starting hypotheses concerning
> script and language.
So are cryptologists wrong when they say it's impossible to decipher a
one-time pad? That's merely a sub-problem of deciphering an unknown
language recorded in an unknown script.
grapheus
> "grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
> news:337ae51f.0401...@posting.google.com...
>
> iscussion !..
> >
> > But I have to tell you that until now, NOBODY has shown that a single
> > PROOF was wrong, and, although you believe to be a SUPER-GENIUS, I bet
> > anything you want that you will NOT SUCCEED neither !...
> >
>
> With a single comparatively short text it is not difficult to produce a
> potential translation. Especially when you have a degree of freedom as to
> which language the text is written in.
> The current front runner could well be correct, but the proper test of a
> translation system is not internal consistancy
Correct !.. I fully agree !.. This is what I tried to explain !
> but whether it can then
> translate a second long text. Success here normally convinces doubters,
> failure means that it is back to the drawing board
This is not needed IF there is a sufficient set of internal and, most
important, EXTERNAL PROOFS, like the ones which have been presented.
Therefore, the VERIFICATION of the decipherment is THE SAME as the
scientific verification of ANY scientific theory : "Supposing the
theory true, are ALL its CONSEQUENCES verified by hard FACTS ?.." For
the "Proto-Ionic Solution" of the Phaistos Disk, this is the case :
not only the decipherment is INTERNALLY COHERENT, but ALL its
CONSEQUENCES have been confirmed...
grapheus
PS : By the way, have you read, at least, J.F.'s book "Les
Proto-Ioniens : Histoire d'un Peuple oublié"?.. It talks about some
of these proofs, the rest having been printed in diverse journals...
grapheus
> Jim Webster wrote:
> >
> > "grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
> > news:337ae51f.0401...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > iscussion !..
> > >
> > > But I have to tell you that until now, NOBODY has shown that a single
> > > PROOF was wrong, and, although you believe to be a SUPER-GENIUS, I bet
> > > anything you want that you will NOT SUCCEED neither !...
> > >
> >
> > With a single comparatively short text it is not difficult to produce a
> > potential translation. Especially when you have a degree of freedom as to
> > which language the text is written in.
> > The current front runner could well be correct, but the proper test of a
> > translation system is not internal consistancy but whether it can then
> > translate a second long text. Success here normally convinces doubters,
> > failure means that it is back to the drawing board
>
Are you participating with Bobby D. Bryant to an IGNARROGANCE-CONTEST,
like pretty girls participate to beauty-contest ?..
Would you mind STOPPING YOUR LIES, like the following :
> There isn't any "current front-runner," since absolutely nothing is
> known about where the P.D. came from, which might give a hint as to what
> to try comparing it with.
It is perfectly known to-day where the Phaistos Disk is coming from,
when it has been printed, who printed it and why, why it has been
found in the ruins of the Temple Repository at Phaistos, demolished
after an Earthquake, etc.
REFUSING TO BE INFORMED is YOUR business, not mine... But spreading
around stupid remarks based upon your ignarrogance cannot be tolerated
without reacting !..
grapheus
grapheus
Are you participating to a contest of LIES and STUPID REMARKS ?...
Cryptologists have ALWAYS said that this is impossible *WHEN* the text
is too short, that's all !..
Shall I quote for instance the General L. Sacco saying that with a
text written in the "Caesar's code", about a 100 letters-length is
sufficient to decipher it ?. That is what Claude Shannon has also
DEMONSTRATED...
With the Phaistos Disk, one has to deal with a "Simple Substitution
Code". Very easy to decipher, once the language and the type of script
have been correctly guessed or determined by any means!...
grapheus
Jim Webster
I think the main problem is what people regard as 'proofs'. History is
bedevilled with this problem where absolute proof is not easy to come by.
Try discussing the order of the succession of the Kings of Parthia for
example with special reference to who is related to whom :-))
My comments were made more from the scientific meaning of 'proof' as opposed
to this particular case. In science, in very general terms, you produce a
hypothesis, which explains what is known. It is sort of firmed up to a
theory, which takes things one stage further, it not merely explains what is
there, but also predicts what is to happen. At this point you compare the
predictions with reality and if the theory predicts correctly, then, in
crude terms, the theory is regarded as 'proved'. Until that is, someone
comes along with a prediction that doesn't work, or an effect that wasn't
predicted and you start all over again.
With the disk, the final proof would be the reading of a previously unknown
text. At the moment the translation might be at what we would call the
'Newtons laws of motion phase', fine, but some smart lad will come along and
introduce the linguistic equivalent of special relativity. :-)
There is no reason why the "Proto-Ionic Solution" is not the correct one,
and as you say, there is a great deal you can do to check. But at a
scientific level we shouldn't accept the crucifixion until we put our
fingers in the nail holes. But up until we get that opportunity we have to
have a 'best working solution' that is taken as the base line for further
advance. I would suggest that rather than trying to argue whether something
is proven or not, it might be better to argue whether something is the best
working solution available. It is a lower, more pragmatic level of
verification, but it allows work to move forward. Indeed if work progresses
on this basis, then that in itself strengthens the validity of the solution.
>
> grapheus
>
> PS : By the way, have you read, at least, J.F.'s book "Les
> Proto-Ioniens : Histoire d'un Peuple oublié"?.. It talks about some
> of these proofs, the rest having been printed in diverse journals...
I confess that this is not really my field, and in spite of the efforts of
the education system I am not comfortable in French.
Jim Webster
hippo
"grapheus" wrote in message
> Cryptologists have ALWAYS said that this is impossible *WHEN* the text
> is too short, that's all !..
> Shall I quote for instance the General L. Sacco saying that with a
> text written in the "Caesar's code", about a 100 letters-length is
> sufficient to decipher it ?. That is what Claude Shannon has also
> DEMONSTRATED...
> With the Phaistos Disk, one has to deal with a "Simple Substitution
> Code". Very easy to decipher, once the language and the type of script
> have been correctly guessed or determined by any means!...
One time pads can be broken by substitution if long enough. It is almost
easy now with computers. I do like the translation offered by your
decipherer. It has the ring of truth given the relative importance. It is
just that with a one time system the language is known down to syntax,
grammar, and punctuation, unlike a theoretical proto-language. You can
accept the decipherment and I can want to accept it. It remains that *proof*
will always be wanting without another text as a check. -the Troll
grapheus
This is exactly what happens with the "Proto-Ionian Solution" .
For instance : *IF* the decipherment (found by statistical methods) is
true, Greeks speaking a Proto-Ionic dialect MUST have been settled in
the Aegean at or before 1800BC (= date of the Disk). Is this VERIFIED
?.. The answer is YES and is called the "Astronomical Proof".
Second example : *IF* the decipherment is true, the Proto-Ionians MUST
have been settled in some areas later occupied by the Mycenaeans. So,
there is an almost certainty to find IN THE MYCENAEAN TABLETS (that we
can read) a few "Proto-Ionisms", i.e. Greek words or names which have
PHONETICAL PROTO-IONIC (v./ Achaean) CHARACTERISTICS. Is this true ?..
The answer is YES again !.. Third example : *IF* the decipherment is
true, it MUST be possible to find a LOGICAL EXPLANATION to the
EPIGRAPHICAL ANOMALIES, for instance why the scribe has obliterated
some signs, to replace them by others. Is this true ?.. Once again,
the answer is YES !.. 95% of these epigraphical anomalies MAY BE
EXPLAINED in a very satisfactory way !... Etc.
> With the disk, the final proof would be the reading of a previously unknown
> text.
Of course, it would be the best PROOF !.. But is it necessary to wait
for it ?.. Was it necessary to wait for a photo of the Earth taken
from Space to believe that the Earth is a sphere ?..
I say that the answer is NO, taking into account the NUMBER and the
VALUE of the EXISTING PROOFS !.. Only people WHO have chosen to
"IGNORE" the PROOFS are asking for "a second disk"!..
grapheus
> >
> > PS : By the way, have you read, at least, J.F.'s book "Les
> > Proto-Ioniens : Histoire d'un Peuple oublié"?.. It talks about some
> > of these proofs, the rest having been printed in diverse journals...
>
> I confess that this is not really my field, and in spite of the efforts of
> the education system I am not comfortable in French.
Too bad !..
Peter T. Daniels
Really? Where did it come from, who printed it, and how did it get to
Crete?
grapheus
Read J. Faucounau's books and papers !..
Here are the plain answers to your questions : The Disk came from an
island belonging to, or close from, the Dodecanese. A Proto-Ionian
scribe printed it. The psalm was composed for the mortuary ceremony
of the dead king and, after that, put into the funerary temple over
the tomb. It was robbed by the Minoans during the "Fase I" of the
Phaistos Palace and kept as a trophy into the (underground)
"Repository of the Temple" at Phaistos. When an Earthquake destroyed
the building during the "Fase II", Minoans workers were sent to
recover the precious objects which were in the Repository. They took
their meals on the spot, after cleaning the Repository. Considering as
worthless the Phaistos Disk, they threw it down into the ashes coming
from the fire they had lighted up to cook their meat. The building was
never restored. Then came L. Pernier in 1908...
grapheus
grapheus
NO. Here is where our opinions are different. I consider the EXISTING
PROOFS largely sufficient, so there is no need of the "Second Text
Checking" !...
But, of course, such a checking would be a very good thing !...
grapheus
By the way, did you examine all the existing proofs ( "mathematical" ,
"astronomical", "linguistical" -about 20 of these- , "epigraphical" -
about 10 of these- , "historical" , etc.) ?..
Peter T. Daniels
So, you don't know where it came from. Why do you say an island rather
than the Ionian mainland? or the Levant? or the Peleponnese? or Italy?
or Iberia? or Egypt? or Libya? etc.
> A Proto-Ionian
> scribe printed it.
You cannot assume your conclusion in your premisses.
> The psalm was composed for the mortuary ceremony
> of the dead king and, after that, put into the funerary temple over
> the tomb.
Where was this temple-and-tomb?
> It was robbed by the Minoans during the "Fase I" of the
> Phaistos Palace and kept as a trophy into the (underground)
> "Repository of the Temple" at Phaistos. When an Earthquake destroyed
> the building during the "Fase II", Minoans workers were sent to
> recover the precious objects which were in the Repository. They took
> their meals on the spot, after cleaning the Repository. Considering as
> worthless the Phaistos Disk, they threw it down into the ashes coming
> from the fire they had lighted up to cook their meat. The building was
> never restored. Then came L. Pernier in 1908...
What is the evidence for this story?
grapheus
RIDICULOUS question of an IGNARROGANT !..
> > A Proto-Ionian scribe printed it.
>
> You cannot assume your conclusion in your premisses.
NEW RIDICULOUS REMARK, ignoring that all the theory has been
DEFINITELY PROVED !..
>
> > The psalm was composed for the mortuary ceremony
> > of the dead king and, after that, put into the funerary temple over
> > the tomb.
>
> Where was this temple-and-tomb?
In the island mentioned hereabove !
>
> > It was robbed by the Minoans during the "Fase I" of the
> > Phaistos Palace and kept as a trophy into the (underground)
> > "Repository of the Temple" at Phaistos. When an Earthquake destroyed
> > the building during the "Fase II", Minoans workers were sent to
> > recover the precious objects which were in the Repository. They took
> > their meals on the spot, after cleaning the Repository. Considering as
> > worthless the Phaistos Disk, they threw it down into the ashes coming
> > from the fire they had lighted up to cook their meat. The building was
> > never restored. Then came L. Pernier in 1908...
>
> What is the evidence for this story?
READ J.Faucounau's books and papers !.. Don't expect me to sum up
hundreds of pages to avoid you to make the effort of looking at the
original documents !.. I gave you the answers to your questions. If
you want to judge by yourself of their value, read the J.F.'s books
and papers and the references given to others 'work in them, as I did
myself. This is the way SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM works... Except for
IGNARROGANTS who believe that they are so intelligent that they can
judge difficult matters from a two lines summary !...
grapheus
Ancient Star
(when I picked up on this post), "how" is one to know just exactly
"what" is to be translated?
Suffice it to say, that, "Cretan" was part of the old "Koine/Kana"
scripts generally used by the Sea
People/Phoenicians/Canaanites/Babylonians, et al. The 'OT' was written
in a variation of this script also. It is considered very ancient
Celtic. You may even find Runes mixed with it -- depending on the age of
the particular script in question?
If you are referring to the Phaestos disc, the above applies as well.
It was written by Celts, with a 'Runic' mix. The glyphs pretty much
inform of the Gallic warrior, and of the temple.
KT at "http://community-2.webtv.net/Katsscan/AncientMoons"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
hippo
"grapheus" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> "astronomical", "linguistical" -about 20 of these- , "pigraphical" -
> about 10 of these- , "historical" , etc.) ?..
I haven't because I can't read French on that level. I have read the
proposed translation and whatever there is available in English including
your very fine defenses over time. From them I can say:
1. The religious context of the discovery increases the possibility that the
disk was intrusive as a war trophy as proposed, it having been common
practice to donate trophies to temples.
2. The proposed translation makes perfect sense for a war trophy given that
the inscription is unique and unlikely to be a laundry list or for any other
mundane purpose. It also reads very will into a bronze age mindset. In other
words the 'ring' is truer than the other proposed translations I have read.
3. The proposed proto-Ionian language makes sense given the period.
I wish that the proofs were available in English if for no other reason than
I would like to read them. -the Troll
grapheus
What I can do is giving you some details about the main PROOFS.
1)- The "mathematical proof" :
J. Faucounau has said that he was convinced at the beginning that the
script was NOT acrophonic. So, he determined the eleven first
"probable phonetic values" using only mathematical methods. Only then,
he says, it appeared to him that the values he had found seemed
acrophonic. He made a quick calculation to estimate the probability
that such a thing was due to mere chance, and found that this
probability was of the order of 10 exp. minus 6 or less.
I suppose that any mathematician can verify this calculation : "What
is the probability that a WRONG decipherment may lead by pure chance,
for the 11 first values found, at the conclusion that they are
acrophonic ?" Following what I know, J.F. has accepted in his
calculation the possibility of 10 "possible a priori acrophonic
values" for a single sign , what seems pretty large. For instance, he
has supposed for the "woman-sign" the possibility for it to be read
"Wife", "Spouse", "Goddess", "Demeter", "Athena", etc.
2)- The "astronomical proof" :
J.F. has used THREE different calculations, made by three different
reputable astronomers, who had tried to solve the problem : "Who
invented the Constellations, when and where ?".. The answer to the
two last questions is : c. 2500BC + or - 300 years, in a location
situated about 100km north of Crete . Taking into account the
PRIMITIVE NAMES of the Constellations, J.F. has demonstrated that the
"Inventors of the Constellations" must have been "Proto-Ionians".
3)- The "linguistical proofs" :
After deciphering the Disk and finding that it was written in
Proto-Ionic - what was AGAINST the current theory of that time
(beginning of the 70ies) - J.F. has studied the possibility of the
existence of "Proto-Ionisms" in the Mycenaean tablets, what was
CONFIRMING the existence of Proto-Ionians at an early date, and
showing that the current theory, called the "Risch-Chadwick Theory"
was WRONG. He found about 30 cases of such "proto-ionisms" in the
Linear B tablets. They were published in two papers in linguistical
journals, but did'n't attract very much the attention of most
scholars, who were intoxicated by the "Risch-Chadwick Theory"...
4)- The "epigraphical proofs" :
J.F. has studied the possibility to find a RATIONAL EXPLANATION to all
the "epigraphical anomalies" of the Phaistos Disk : "Why the scribe
did he change a sign for another ?.." "Why did he pack together the
signs in ONE compartment (A29 for instance) and not in the adjacent
ones (A28 and A30/31) ?".. "Why some signs have been misoriented?" ,
etc. "Proofs" of this type (i.e. "rational explanation of the
anomaly") are about twelve...
5)- The "Archaeological Proofs" :
In the same way, J.F. has tried to find a RATIONAL EXPLANATION to
diverse archaeological problems in the frame of his "Proto-Ionian
Theory" directly resulting from his decipherment. Proofs of this type
are more than 20...
I have thoroughly examined all the proofs that I could check by
myself, and this examination has FULLY CONVINCED me that the
"Proto-Ionic Solution" was THE FINAL SOLUTION to the Phaistos Disk's
enigma.
Therefore my campaign to make it known...
Best regards
grapheus
Miguel Carrasquer
>1)- The "mathematical proof" :
>J. Faucounau has said that he was convinced at the beginning that the
>script was NOT acrophonic. So, he determined the eleven first
>"probable phonetic values" using only mathematical methods.
The crucial question is: what were those mathematical methods? What data
were they based on?
Faucounau says _nothing at all_ about this in his book. That's
unfortunate, because without that information, the rest of the so-called
"proofs" are null and void.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
m...@wxs.nl
hippo
"grapheus" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> > I wish that the proofs were available in English if for no other reason
I think the linguistic proof are the most important. I would like to see the
proposed proto-Ionic text with a discussion of grammar and the proposed
state of the language as represented by the text of the disk much as Ventris
did with Linear B. I respect your argument and thank you for taking the time
One day another text will be found. It makes no sense for a script to have
been invented for only the one purpose. -the Troll
grapheus
Your statement is RIDICULOUS !... The deciphering method has NOTHING
TO DO with the NUMEROUS *PROOFS* I mentioned, except - this is right
- for the "mathematical proof", in order for anybody to be able to
check whether J.Faucounau has SAID THE TRUTH in pretending that he
did not start FROM THE BEGINNING using the "acrophonic method" !...
In which case, his "mathematical proof" would be senseless...
But : 1)- WHY are you suspecting him ?.. Do you have any reason for
that, EXCEPT YOUR OWN ARROGANCE : "As ME, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal, I
could'n't find a Statistical method allowing me to decipher the Disk,
SUCH A METHOD DOES'N'T EXIST. So J.F. "MUST" be LYING !.." Q.E.D.
!!!!
2)- Even if J.F. has not published the details of the methodS (PLURAL
!) he used, he has given a description of them :
FIRST STEP : a)- Searching for "Suitable Criteria" in order to
DISTINGUISH two languages, written in approximately the same type of
script (He gave the TH-example as a criterion for distinguishing
ALPHABETIC English from ALPHABETIC French) . b)- examine the
incidence of a CHANGE IN THE SCRIPT (For instance, the difference
between Alphabetic English and French can be done AT FIRST GLANCE if
ACCENTS are used ( French é, à, ù, etc.). Eventually modify the "type
of script" in function of this and search for NEW CRITERIA.
(In the given examples, if one would have first chosen the existence
of "à,é,è,ù.." as a criterion, noticing that the script "may" ignore
the accents, he would have changed this first criterion for the
TH-criterion).
c)- make the PROBABILISTIC CALCULATIONS for as many criteria as
possible d)- draw a PROBABILISTIC CONCLUSION from the calculations ,
i.e. : "Possible" or "Not possible" .
J.F. wrote that the probabilistic conclusion of this FIRST STEP has
been : "All the tried languages don't fit very well, with the
exception of some kind of a GREEK DIALECT".
Please, notice that GREEK has also been the MOST CHOSEN LANGUAGE by
other" decipherers". Do you believe this due to MERE CHANCE ?..
Moreover, one of those "decipherers" (St. Fischer) even tried to
statistically justify this CHOICE !... Was he TOTALLY INSANE ?..
Then, J.F. launched his SECOND STEP : Supposing the language as
Greek, searching for the PRECISE CHARACTERISTICS of the MOST SUITABLE
TYPE of SCRIPT. His conclusion has been : "If the language is really
GREEK, the script CONFUSES O and U , but DISTINGUISHES between Short A
and Long A .
herefore, he concluded that the DIALECT HAD TO BE PROTO-IONIAN, and
went on with the THIRD STEP : "Supposing the Dialect being
Proto-IONIAN, what the MOST PROBABLE PHONETIC VALUE has the Sign n° x
?... This is the way, he says, he could give to ELEVEN signs a
"PROBABLE PHONETIC VALUE"...
FOURTH STEP : After, finally, having deciphered the Phaistos Disk, he
SEARCHED -DURING almost 25 YEARS- for EXTERNAL CONFIRMATION...
What is WRONG, in your eyes, in this approach ?????
grapheus
grapheus
You have to read "Le dechiffrement..." by J. Faucounau., which gives
the translation in Greek, with his philological comments. NOTA : J.F.
told me that the 1999-edition contains a few errors, but without real
importance (For instance, he saw in a final -O a "Generalized Dual
Form" , but has corrected now in a "Regular Accusatif in -ON", with no
notation of the final -N by the script, which writes A-RI-O for
"Ariôn" ).
Translation and Comments are too long for me to give you a Summary...
Sorry !..
grapheus
Miguel Carrasquer
>Miguel Carrasquer <m...@wxs.nl> wrote in message news:<j8k600te3hflec2nu...@4ax.com>...
>> On 12 Jan 2004 15:44:42 -0800, grap...@www.com (grapheus) wrote:
>>
>> >1)- The "mathematical proof" :
>> >J. Faucounau has said that he was convinced at the beginning that the
>> >script was NOT acrophonic. So, he determined the eleven first
>> >"probable phonetic values" using only mathematical methods.
>>
>> The crucial question is: what were those mathematical methods? What data
>> were they based on?
>>
>> Faucounau says _nothing at all_ about this in his book. That's
>> unfortunate, because without that information, the rest of the so-called
>> "proofs" are null and void.
>>
>
>Your statement is RIDICULOUS !... The deciphering method has NOTHING
>TO DO with the NUMEROUS *PROOFS* I mentioned, except - this is right
>- for the "mathematical proof", in order for anybody to be able to
>check whether J.Faucounau has SAID THE TRUTH in pretending that he
>did not start FROM THE BEGINNING using the "acrophonic method" !...
>In which case, his "mathematical proof" would be senseless...
>
>But : 1)- WHY are you suspecting him ?.. Do you have any reason for
>that, EXCEPT YOUR OWN ARROGANCE : "As ME, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal, I
>could'n't find a Statistical method allowing me to decipher the Disk,
>SUCH A METHOD DOES'N'T EXIST. So J.F. "MUST" be LYING !.." Q.E.D.
>!!!!
I'm not suspecting anyone.
In science, you describe your methods and your data in such a way that
anyone who's interested can verify how you proceded. You don't have to
take anyone's word for it.
Since Faucounau has not given us any way to verify or falsify his initial
premises (the "eleven first probable phonetic values"), his book has no
scientific value.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Miguel Carrasquer <m...@wxs.nl> wrote in message news:<j8k600te3hflec2nu...@4ax.com>...
> > On 12 Jan 2004 15:44:42 -0800, grap...@www.com (grapheus) wrote:
> >
> > >1)- The "mathematical proof" :
> > >J. Faucounau has said that he was convinced at the beginning that the
> > >script was NOT acrophonic. So, he determined the eleven first
> > >"probable phonetic values" using only mathematical methods.
> >
> > The crucial question is: what were those mathematical methods? What data
> > were they based on?
> >
> > Faucounau says _nothing at all_ about this in his book. That's
> > unfortunate, because without that information, the rest of the so-called
> > "proofs" are null and void.
> >
>
> Your statement is RIDICULOUS !... The deciphering method has NOTHING
> TO DO with the NUMEROUS *PROOFS* I mentioned, except - this is right
> - for the "mathematical proof", in order for anybody to be able to
> check whether J.Faucounau has SAID THE TRUTH in pretending that he
> did not start FROM THE BEGINNING using the "acrophonic method" !...
> In which case, his "mathematical proof" would be senseless...
>
> But : 1)- WHY are you suspecting him ?.. Do you have any reason for
> that, EXCEPT YOUR OWN ARROGANCE : "As ME, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal, I
> could'n't find a Statistical method allowing me to decipher the Disk,
> SUCH A METHOD DOES'N'T EXIST. So J.F. "MUST" be LYING !.." Q.E.D.
> !!!!
J.F. doesn't reveal his "Statistical method," so maybe _he's_ LYING.
> 2)- Even if J.F. has not published the details of the methodS (PLURAL
> !) he used, he has given a description of them :
> FIRST STEP : a)- Searching for "Suitable Criteria" in order to
> DISTINGUISH two languages, written in approximately the same type of
> script (He gave the TH-example as a criterion for distinguishing
> ALPHABETIC English from ALPHABETIC French) .
As in thé vs. the?
> b)- examine the
> incidence of a CHANGE IN THE SCRIPT (For instance, the difference
> between Alphabetic English and French can be done AT FIRST GLANCE if
> ACCENTS are used ( French é, à, ù, etc.). Eventually modify the "type
> of script" in function of this and search for NEW CRITERIA.
> (In the given examples, if one would have first chosen the existence
> of "à,é,è,ù.." as a criterion, noticing that the script "may" ignore
> the accents, he would have changed this first criterion for the
> TH-criterion).
We already know that the P.D. is unique, so this is a pretty pointless
step.
> c)- make the PROBABILISTIC CALCULATIONS for as many criteria as
But the criteria are not revealed.
> possible d)- draw a PROBABILISTIC CONCLUSION from the calculations ,
> i.e. : "Possible" or "Not possible" .
> J.F. wrote that the probabilistic conclusion of this FIRST STEP has
> been : "All the tried languages don't fit very well, with the
> exception of some kind of a GREEK DIALECT".
List the "tried languages."
And also list all the languages of which no trace has been preserved
across nearly four millennia.
> Please, notice that GREEK has also been the MOST CHOSEN LANGUAGE by
> other" decipherers". Do you believe this due to MERE CHANCE ?..
It is due to the findspot of the P.D., which isn't its place of origin.
> Moreover, one of those "decipherers" (St. Fischer) even tried to
> statistically justify this CHOICE !... Was he TOTALLY INSANE ?..
On the basis of several other publications of his: yes, probably.
> Then, J.F. launched his SECOND STEP : Supposing the language as
> Greek, searching for the PRECISE CHARACTERISTICS of the MOST SUITABLE
> TYPE of SCRIPT. His conclusion has been : "If the language is really
> GREEK, the script CONFUSES O and U , but DISTINGUISHES between Short A
> and Long A .
> herefore, he concluded that the DIALECT HAD TO BE PROTO-IONIAN, and
> went on with the THIRD STEP : "Supposing the Dialect being
> Proto-IONIAN, what the MOST PROBABLE PHONETIC VALUE has the Sign n° x
> ?... This is the way, he says, he could give to ELEVEN signs a
> "PROBABLE PHONETIC VALUE"...
Yet Classical Greek script doesn't distinguish between short and long A,
and we know that the standard language did.
> FOURTH STEP : After, finally, having deciphered the Phaistos Disk, he
> SEARCHED -DURING almost 25 YEARS- for EXTERNAL CONFIRMATION...
>
> What is WRONG, in your eyes, in this approach ?????
"External confirmation" is not relevant to a decipherment. Nor is the
plausibility of the interpretation arrived at (cf. Fischer's
"interpretation.")
Miguel Carrasquer
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>grapheus wrote:
>>
>>
>> But : 1)- WHY are you suspecting him ?.. Do you have any reason for
>> that, EXCEPT YOUR OWN ARROGANCE : "As ME, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal, I
>> could'n't find a Statistical method allowing me to decipher the Disk,
>> SUCH A METHOD DOES'N'T EXIST. So J.F. "MUST" be LYING !.." Q.E.D.
>> !!!!
>
>J.F. doesn't reveal his "Statistical method," so maybe _he's_ LYING.
Maybe he is, there is no way of telling.
I prefer to assume he is not lying. But then I don't understand the way
his mind works. If he's an intelligent person, he *must* realize that
nobody will ever accept his decipherment, or even take it seriously, if he
doesn't reveal his "statistical methods" and the data that he used. As it
is, the "grid", with the phonetic values of the decipherment, is dropped on
us as a "deus ex machina", with no attempt to justify the choices made.
Exactly as Chadwick remarked somewhere: even if King Minos himself were to
reveal the solution of the disk to someone in a dream, that person would
not be able to convince anyone of the correctness of the decipherment.
Of course I asked Faucounau why he failed to provide any proof for the
decipherment. He replied:
JF> You are perfectly right. I have not explained how I came to the grid.
JF> The reasons for that are the following :
JF> a)- the statistical methods I used are lengthy and boring.
JF> b)- they are based upon mathematical notions which are generally not
JF> teached
JF> in the Universities, like the concept that "probability is function of
JF> knowledge" or like the properties of the "generalized Markov's chains",
JF> etc.
JF> So, to explain them, I need to write a 300 page book. Add to that that
JF> c)- I have lost most of my 1970-1975 calculations when I moved from the
JF> USA some fifteen years ago
JF> d)- that in all cases the method being of probabilistic nature,
JF> publishing
JF> it will *prove* nothing ( Probability is not certainty !), except that
JF> I had, some times, a good chance to be wrong (The "certainty-step" used
JF> in deciphering cannot be the same as for building a bridge !..But some
JF> people, - I have recorded it in another case ! - have some trouble to
JF> understand that !) and you may understand why I did'n't write this
JF> book, and why I don't consider writing it to-day as a priority !..
Perhaps publishing such a justification for the grid would "*prove*
nothing", but writing a book without such basic justification is
*guaranteed* to prove nothing at all. And to waste 25 years on finding
"external proofs" which are worthless without providing a basic proof for
the correctness of the grid, strikes me as more effort than "writing a 300
page book", boring and lengthy as it may be.
If Faucounau is not lying, then basically what he says is (a) I'm too lazy
to write a proof of the grid [or worse: you people are too lazy to read
it]; (b) the mathematical methods I used are suspect; (d) there may be
errors in it; and (c) the cat's eaten it.
That just won't do.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 13:25:54 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >grapheus wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> But : 1)- WHY are you suspecting him ?.. Do you have any reason for
> >> that, EXCEPT YOUR OWN ARROGANCE : "As ME, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal, I
> >> could'n't find a Statistical method allowing me to decipher the Disk,
> >> SUCH A METHOD DOES'N'T EXIST. So J.F. "MUST" be LYING !.." Q.E.D.
> >> !!!!
> >
> >J.F. doesn't reveal his "Statistical method," so maybe _he's_ LYING.
>
> Maybe he is, there is no way of telling.
>
> I prefer to assume he is not lying. But then I don't understand the way
Me too; just turning Grapheus's favorite (or second favorite) argument
back on himself.
> his mind works. If he's an intelligent person, he *must* realize that
> nobody will ever accept his decipherment, or even take it seriously, if he
> doesn't reveal his "statistical methods" and the data that he used. As it
> is, the "grid", with the phonetic values of the decipherment, is dropped on
> us as a "deus ex machina", with no attempt to justify the choices made.
> Exactly as Chadwick remarked somewhere: even if King Minos himself were to
> reveal the solution of the disk to someone in a dream, that person would
> not be able to convince anyone of the correctness of the decipherment.
>
> Of course I asked Faucounau why he failed to provide any proof for the
> decipherment. He replied:
In his own name? So why does he pretend to be "Grapheus" for the rest of
us?
He explicitly claims (a) and (c), and (d) is surely inevitable; if every
act of mathematics were perfect, there wouldn't be any further
mathematics, would there?
Although cats are more likely to regurgitate odd items than actually eat
them.
grapheus
A NEW SCANDALOUS STATEMENT !..
1)- You are gratuitously accusing an honnest scholar of being a LIAR.
2)- In all cases, the lack of publication of the DETAILS of the J.F.'s
PROBABILISTIC method allows you to put in doubt ONLY the "mathemaical
PROOF" , NOT ALL THE OTHER PROOFS which have NOTHING TO DO with the
method he followed!..
In fact, YOU ARE SEARCHING a PRETEXT for NOT EXAMINING all the other
PROOFS !..
I guess why : BECAUSE YOU ARE UNABLE to show that they are wrong or
not valid !...
By doing so, you are showing WHAT A DOGMATIC SPIRIT you have !..
grapheus
grapheus
I don't know whether J.F. has written this to you or if you are a
liar... (After all, you HAVE NOT PUBLISHED this letter, right !...)
Anyway, supposing that he wrote what you say, you are recognizing
yourself that "publishing the justification of his grid" - FOUND BY
PROPABILISTIC METHODS, I repeat it - would PROVE NOTHING.
WHY, then, are you asking for this publication ?..
I will tell you why : BECAUSE YOU ARE UNABLE to show that ALL THE
OTHER (mostly EXTERIOR) PROOFS which have been presented are WRONG or
VALUELESS !!!!!
So, you are JUST SEARCHING for a motive for NOT LOOKING AT THEM, so
you may continue in PRETENDING that the "DISK CANNOT BE DECIPHERED"
!.. Because, if YOU, Miguel Vidal-Carrasquer, a SUPER-SUPER-GENIUS,
has been UNABLE TO DO IT, NOBODY CAN !... Q.E.D....
grapheus
Miguel Carrasquer
And (b) because even if I'm not a mathematician, I know what Markov chains
are, and I'm pretty sure they are taught at Universities. It sounds fishy
to me.
Strangely enough, there is also no mention whatsoever of text corpora,
which surely one would need to do what is claimed was done.
>Although cats are more likely to regurgitate odd items than actually eat
>them.
She wouldn't regurgitate Camembert, no matter how fucking runny it was...
Peter T. Daniels
>
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 19:21:01 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >> If Faucounau is not lying, then basically what he says is (a) I'm too lazy
> >> to write a proof of the grid [or worse: you people are too lazy to read
> >> it]; (b) the mathematical methods I used are suspect; (d) there may be
> >> errors in it; and (c) the cat's eaten it.
> >>
> >> That just won't do.
> >
> >He explicitly claims (a) and (c), and (d) is surely inevitable; if every
> >act of mathematics were perfect, there wouldn't be any further
> >mathematics, would there?
>
> And (b) because even if I'm not a mathematician, I know what Markov chains
> are, and I'm pretty sure they are taught at Universities. It sounds fishy
> to me.
>
> Strangely enough, there is also no mention whatsoever of text corpora,
> which surely one would need to do what is claimed was done.
You IGNARROGANT! Have you NOT comprehended anyTHING by Cl. SHANnon, who
PROVED that you only NEED 121 letters IN order to decipher ANYthing? Or
else you are LYING.
> >Although cats are more likely to regurgitate odd items than actually eat
> >them.
>
> She wouldn't regurgitate Camembert, no matter how fucking runny it was...
I wouldn't have it in the house, but if I did, he wouldn't touch it.
Brian M. Scott
<m...@wxs.nl> wrote in <news:eko800pbei2flnileuh28dvna50n32ub
t...@4ax.com> in soc.history.ancient,sci.lang:
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 19:21:01 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>> If Faucounau is not lying, then basically what he says
>>> is (a) I'm too lazy to write a proof of the grid [or
>>> worse: you people are too lazy to read it]; (b) the
>>> mathematical methods I used are suspect; (d) there may
>>> be errors in it; and (c) the cat's eaten it.
>>> That just won't do.
>> He explicitly claims (a) and (c), and (d) is surely
>> inevitable; if every act of mathematics were perfect,
>> there wouldn't be any further mathematics, would there?
> And (b) because even if I'm not a mathematician, I know
> what Markov chains are, and I'm pretty sure they are
> taught at Universities. It sounds fishy to me.
They certainly are. He did say 'generalized Markov chains',
and I suppose that it's possible that he's using some
generalization of his own, but I still don't see a problem.
His 'probability is function of knowledge' sounds rather
like a very informal description of some sort of Bayesian
statistics, which is also not particularly outré.
[...]
Brian
hippo
"grapheus" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> > I think the linguistic proof are the most important. I would like to see
the
> > proposed proto-Ionic text with a discussion of grammar and the proposed
> > state of the language as represented by the text of the disk much as
Ventris
> > did with Linear B. I respect your argument and thank you for taking the
time
> > One day another text will be found. It makes no sense for a script to
have
> > been invented for only the one purpose. -the Troll
>
> You have to read "Le dechiffrement..." by J. Faucounau., which gives
> the translation in Greek, with his philological comments. NOTA : J.F.
> told me that the 1999-edition contains a few errors, but without real
> importance (For instance, he saw in a final -O a "Generalized Dual
> Form" , but has corrected now in a "Regular Accusatif in -ON", with no
> notation of the final -N by the script, which writes A-RI-O for
> "Ariôn" ).
> Translation and Comments are too long for me to give you a Summary...
> Sorry !..
No problem. I am grateful for what I have learned from you. Unfortunately I
have not read French since the age of ten. Even my Greek is better. Thanks
yet again for your time and comments which have been most helpful. -the
Troll
grapheus
You are welcome !
A precision : THIS book gives the traduction and philological
comments, but the detail of only several (not even all !)
"epigraphical proofs". For the other proofs, references are given to
25 or 30 previous papers, not always easy to find. But in his second
book "Les Proto-Ioniens ...", J.F. has given some more details about
the two main proofs. This is why I generally advise people to read
this second book first... But it depends, of course, of what you are
interested in...
regards
grapheus
hippo
"grapheus" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> You are welcome !
> A precision : THIS book gives the traduction and philological
> comments, but the detail of only several (not even all !)
> "epigraphical proofs". For the other proofs, references are given to
> 25 or 30 previous papers, not always easy to find. But in his second
> book "Les Proto-Ioniens ...", J.F. has given some more details about
> the two main proofs. This is why I generally advise people to read
> this second book first... But it depends, of course, of what you are
> interested in...
Sadly it depends upon what one can read. You speak both English and French,
understand the nature of the argument, and clearly are convinced. Why don't
you translate "Les Proto-Ionians" and submit it for publication? -the Troll
grapheus
I am too busy for that !..
As a general rule, I only write when asked by an editor. This is
largely enough for being busy !..
grapheus
o8TY
So tell me you do not think a million dollars for a year's work is
worthwhile.
IWCFVB
Don't waste your time further with grapheus (who is probably JF himself). He
clearly doesn't understand some basic cryptological and epigraphical concepts.
For example, an unknown script writing and unknown language CANNOT be
deciphered. One may guess at the underlying language and produce what appears
to be a valid translation. However, there are always many, many languages that
would appear to produce such "valid" translations in a single, isolated
incidence of the script. As the 5 of us obviously realize and grapheus does
not, a second inscription would be required to check. Always and without
exception.
-Jeff
grapheus
> Bob, Miguel, Jim, and Peter,
>
> Don't waste your time further with grapheus (who is probably JF himself). He
> clearly doesn't understand some basic cryptological and epigraphical concepts.
But Jeff, a SUPER-SUPER-GENIUS can !..
> For example, an unknown script writing and unknown language CANNOT be
> deciphered.
This is the "JEFF's THEOREM". Don't ask for the DEMONSTRATION of it
!.. A SUPER-SUPER-GENIUS like Jeff, is let off such a task !... And M.
Ventris was WRONG when he deciphered the Linear B script : he did'n't
respect the "Jeff's Theorem". Shame on him !...
> One may guess at the underlying language and produce what appears
> to be a valid translation. However, there are always many, many languages that
> would appear to produce such "valid" translations in a single, isolated
> incidence of the script.
That is "Jeff's Theorem N°2" , which contradicts Jeff's Theorem n° 1.
Don't ask why, folks !.. A SUPER-SUPER-GENIUS like Jeff, does'n't have
to EXPLAIN...
> As the 5 of us obviously realize and grapheus does
> not, a second inscription would be required to check. Always and without
> exception.
And here is "Jeff's Theorem n° 3" : "A second inscription is ALWAYS
required" !.. It's AS VALID AND PROVEN than Jeff's Theorem n° 1 !...
And don't talk to Jeff ABOUT THE OTHER WAYS to PROVE a SOLUTION !...
He HATES the word "PROOFS" !!!!.. He has NEVER LOOKED at the ones
which have been presented in favour of the "Proto-Ionic Solution". A
SUPER-SUPER-GENIUS like Jeff has NO NEED to be informed : HE KNOWS
EVERYTHING IN ADVANCE !!!!!
grapheus
grapheus
> Bob, Miguel, Jim, and Peter,
>
> Don't waste your time further with grapheus.
> An unknown script writing and unknown language CANNOT be
> deciphered. One may guess at the underlying language and produce what appears
> to be a valid translation. However, there are always many, many languages that
> would appear to produce such "valid" translations in a single, isolated
> incidence of the script. As the 5 of us obviously realize and grapheus does
> not, a second inscription would be required to check. Always and without
> exception.
Well, what a nice BUNCH of SUPER-GENIUSES we have in this GOOGLE
GROUP, with Jeff, Bob, Miguel, Peter and Jim !... Their common
characteristics ?.. They HATE the word "PROOFS" !.. And they believe
to have a SUPERIOR MIND !.. When one talk to them about Claude
Shannon or Jean Faucounau, they all answer by common consent :
Claude Shannon ?.. This silly mathematician who established a formula
saying that the Phaistos Disk may be deciphered if one starts from the
"good hypotheses" ?.. But his formula would contradicts what our
bunch of super-geniuses said !!!.. DO FORGET HIM, folks, him and his
formula!..
Jean Faucounau ?.. This stupid mathematician and cranky linguist, who
pretended to have been able to find thirty or more DECISIVE PROOFS
that the "Proto-Ionic Solution" of the Phaistos Disk was correct?..
DO FORGET HIM, folks, him and his proofs !..
Because DO WE, the SUPER-GENIUSES, have paid any attention to these
PROOFS ?.. NO !.. We have even banished this silly word from our
vocabulary !... So, FORGET about the words "PROOFS" or "EVIDENCE",
folks!.. They cannot exist !.. Q.E.D. , Q.E.D, Q.E.D., Q.E.D., Q.E.D.
(five times !)...
How lucky we are to have such SUPER-GENIUSES in this Group !...
grapheus
Hagen
This example can never be a very correct statement, because you have
decide forehand that the 'unknown' is language.
What if my claim, that the Phaistos inscription has 104 abbreviated
elements, was confirmed by some physically marks, and not only by
logic, as is the case?
And if some accepted ancient symbols for solstices were spotted
corectly among the 365 unit-signs?
http://home.gvdnet.dk/~hagen/FIG05C.htm
The word "proofs" has broad aspects: scientifically, philosophically,
selfgiven et.c., but which one interpretation of this inscription will
finally gain the highest priority in the established opinion? A big
mistake was made back in 1908, when the signs were prejudiced as
beeing syllables.
Why don't we hear about analyses, giving similar interwoven
double-symmetries in other worshiped inscriptions? As minutely as the
one I found in the Phaistos disc.(I call this my x-ray proof:)
http://www.geocities.com/o_hagen/fig03.htm
Ole Hagen
o8TY
So that symbol on the P.D. consisting of a small circle encircled by five or
six same-sized circles arranged within a larger circle is what exactly? Can
you prove it?
Bobby D. Bryant
You can easily prove us wrong by deciphering my earlier post. I'll even
give you some hints:
1) It is a paragraph of continuous text in Modern English. (I.e., not a
list or a table, nor a mathematical, astrological, alchemical, or mystical
formula, etc.)
2) Each triplet of numerals indentifies a symbol. 001 is the first symbol
encountered in the text, 002 is the second, etc. Repeats of the numbers
indicate repeats of the symbols. Make what you will of the spaces.
3) There are a few symbols that you actually _should_ be able to figure
out, if you invest a bit of time and thought into it. There are also some
other properties of the document that a well-informed party should be able
to derive pretty easily. (Presumably that does not include you.)
4) It may include grammatical errors and/or typos, but none were
introduced deliberately. (You run no more risk here than you would in a
"real" text.)
5) I do not believe my encoding uses any tricks that have not historically
been used in "natural" writing systems, though I can't guarantee it.
(After you decipher it we can ask Peter about that.)
6) The text is an easily comprehensible monetary offer for deciphering it.
Naturally, you have to decipher it to find out what the offer is and how
to collect it (I hereby exclude the hints given in this message from
triggering the "hints" clause in the offer.)
I look forward to writing you a check. <snort>
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Hagen
>On 16 Jan 2004 00:10:28 GMT, iwc...@aol.com (IWCFVB) wrote:
>
>>Bob, Miguel, Jim, and Peter,
>>
>>Don't waste your time further with grapheus (who is probably JF himself). He
>>clearly doesn't understand some basic cryptological and epigraphical concepts.
>>For example, an unknown script writing and unknown language CANNOT be
>>deciphered. One may guess at the underlying language and produce what appears
>>to be a valid translation. However, there are always many, many languages that
>>would appear to produce such "valid" translations in a single, isolated
>>incidence of the script. As the 5 of us obviously realize and grapheus does
>>not, a second inscription would be required to check. Always and without
>>exception.
>>
>>-Jeff
>
This example can never be a very correct statement, because you have
decided forehand that the 'unknown' is language.
What if my claim, that the Phaistos inscription has 104 abbreviated
elements, was confirmed by some physically marks, and not only by
logic, as is the case?
And if some accepted ancient symbols for solstices were spotted
corectly among the 365 unit-signs?
>http://home.gvdnet.dk/~hagen/FIG05C.htm
The word "proofs" has broad aspects: scientifically, philosophically,
selfgiven et.c., but which one interpretation of this inscription will
finally gain the highest priority in the established opinion?
A big mistake was made back in 1908, when the signs were prejudiced
as beeing syllables.
Why don't we hear about analyses, giving similar interwoven
double-symmetries in other worshiped inscriptions? as minutely as the
one I found in the Phaistos disc.(I call this my x-ray proof:)
>http://www.geocities.com/o_hagen/fig03.htm
>Ole Hagen
NB! By mere coinsidense I just stampled over the required 'second
inscription' on the internet!
Does this satisfy you Jeff?
1) http://home.gvdnet.dk/~hagen/dif7.htm
2) http://www.madprofessorproductions.com/Calendar.html
Regards
Hagen
>
>
grapheus
Thanks for this interesting question !..
May I transform it in three other ones ?..
FIRST QUESTION : "Without thinking to any decipherment, what is the
MOST PROBABLE THING represented by the Sign you cited ( Called : Sign
n° 12) ?"...
Here are the answer given by several scholars having examined the
problem : "a round shild" : Evans, Hempl, Reinach, Stawell, Rowe,
Macalister, Ipsen, Muenzer -- "undetermined" : Pernier, (hesitating
between "round shild" and "kernos"), Della Seta (idem) -- "The
Pleiades" : L. Pomerance.
It's obvious that the answer is then : Sign 12 must represent "a round
shild" ...
SECOND QUESTION : "Is the "Proto-Ionic Solution" in accordance with
this "general opinion" ?"
The answer is YES : A "round shild" is called in Ionian (and therefore
must have been in Proto-Ionian) an "ASPIS", what gives -once the
script has been shown to be ACROPHONIC- the phonetic value : AS.
This value is PRECISELY the one given by the "Proto-Ionic Solution".
THIRD QUESTION : "Can those IDENTIFICATION ("a round shild") and
PHONETIC VALUE be considered as PROVED ?..
The answer is YES, because THERE ARE A LOT OF PROOFS that the
"Proto-Ionic Solution" is DEFINITELY CORRECT. So there is NO VALID
REASON for not seing in the Sign n° 12 another thing than "a round
shild".
grapheus
Jacques Guy, fils de sa mère
> So that symbol on the P.D. consisting of a small circle encircled by five or
> six same-sized circles arranged within a larger circle is what exactly?
Six. The drum of a revolver, obviously.
> Can you prove it?
I can! Since the Greeks were able to build orreries (the Antikythera
mechanism), the Proto-Ionians could make revolvers. Obviously.
A revolver is much easier to make than an orrery.
Jacques Guy, fils de sa mère
> You can easily prove us wrong by deciphering my earlier post. I'll even
> give you some hints:
> 1) It is a paragraph of continuous text in Modern English. (I.e., not a
> list or a table, nor a mathematical, astrological, alchemical, or mystical
> formula, etc.)
> 2) Each triplet of numerals indentifies a symbol. 001 is the first symbol
> encountered in the text, 002 is the second, etc. Repeats of the numbers
> indicate repeats of the symbols. Make what you will of the spaces.
Aaaaah! That's what it was! I came across your post completely out of
context, thought it might be a transcription of the Ph.D., but saw
there were far too many different triplets, and could make no sense
of your purpose.
> I look forward to writing you a check. <snort>
The sweet smell of money. It's Dejanews for me...
Jacques Guy
> Aaaaah! That's what it was! I came across your post completely out of
> context, thought it might be a transcription of the Ph.D., but saw
> there were far too many different triplets, and could make no sense
> of your purpose.
> > I look forward to writing you a check. <snort>
> The sweet smell of money. It's Dejanews for me...
To Bobby D. Bryant:
Well, I couldn't find it. Would you mind very much reposting it here?
Or e-mailing it to me? I love such a puzzle, and it would be relevant
to the Voynich Manuscript interest group too. (Don't worry, I am
sure your money is quite safe).
Bobby D. Bryant
Interestingly, a story about the Voynich Manuscript on Slashdot a day or
two earlier is part of what inspired me.
Here it is again:
001 002003 004 005006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 012015 016017 018
019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 012 030 031032 033 034 035 036
037 012 021 038 039 040 041 042 028 043044 045046 047 004 025048017 049
050 051052 009 026 053017 054 055 056 057 058059052 004 060052 004 061
062063 064065 066067052 025 068 069 011 035 070 025071072 028 055
073074046 075 041041041076 077 078078076076076076061 025079065 080075 081
082017 083 068 084085086087 088 004 089090 091046 092 028 009 020 026 038
012 093 094 021 095096087065 097098 031032099 009 100 101 028 102 028 103
019 104 028 105 004 019 108 021 106107109 110 009 111 004 019 095112 113
114 115 031032099 116 117 118006 094 116 076076076076076076076 107 120 107
078078076076076076 028 115 035 121122 036 031119 123 026 031032099 124
095096087065 097098 028 009 097125 026 038 012 093 109 111 021 126 108025
041041041127046 116 094017 026 031032099 028 035 128129 026 130 009 128112
068 126 011 131 132 133 061 121134 135 026 094087 136 028 012 030 137 081
109017 084138 141 128139017 140 142 012 094 007 031032099 028 143 144 009
025048 021 145146052 106107109 084138 039 111 009 147 140 009 028 035
128129 026 130 009 025148 068 084085086087 045046 011 035 070 149 135 021
150151 152 004 029 153 154 111 155 073156046 061 062 157 011 035 158 050
066159086 160017 080075 081161 142 035 162 033 055 028 039 026 163148046
116 033 055 004 026 164 165 045 165 166046 014090 035 167 140 168 028 135
081 169170086 004 035 131 025171 055 026 172 009 068 062 173 011 031032046
033 034 143174 012 175 028 176 135 140 177
grapheus
How many times shall I tell you that I am NOT a decipherer ?... I am
NOT the inventor of the "Proto-Ionic Solution" concerning the Phaistos
Disk !..
By curiosity, I've nevertheless transmitted your posts to J.
Faucounau, to know what he was thinking about it. Here is his answer
(tranlation from French is mine) :
"Dear x...
"I've given a *very* quick look at the problem you submitted to me,
with the "hints" (in English in the text) concerning it. As you told
me that you would hate to see me spending a lot of time on it, I
did'n't carry exact counting of the signs, so the following numbers
are very approximate. I found that the text has a length of about 420
signs, with c.117 different signs. A quick calculation showed me that
it was under Shannon's Unicity Distance which is c.580 following my
calculation (But as I had no Table of Factorial at hand, I used the
"Stirling Approximation").
If the correspondence : 1 sign = 1 linguistic character is reciprocal
( i.e. the SAME sign corresponds always to the SAME character, and
RECIPROCALLY), then one has clearly to deal with a "Word-Script". The
"scribe" started obviously from a text he knew, for instance :
"If some one may decipher this text, I will give him the prize of the
best decipherer in England...",
and made his numbering of the signs following THIS text. In the
hereabove example, one may find again the first line of the coded text
you transmitted to me :
001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006, 007, 008, 009, 010, 011, 012, 013, 014,
012, 015, 016, 017, 018
with repetition of the Sign 012 = the Word "the" .
So, if one wants to decipher the text, he has to search for the
"repeated signs" like 012, and compare them to the "most repeated
words" in English. (For instance, a Sign like 026 "might" correspond
to the word "IS" )..
The "repeated signs in a continuous sequence", like 076 (repeated once
7 times in a row) are a peculiar problem that the decipherer has to
solve. They may be explained by translating something like
"Ah!,Ah!,Ah! Ah! (This is just a suggestion ! There may be others !.).
To sum up : the text is shorter than the Unicity Distance.
Theorically, it cannot be deciphered -- The given "hints" are
unsufficient on one point (Is the correspondence "sign/linguistical
value" reciprocal ?) and useless concerning the content of the message
: in a Word-Script, the content is of no use!) -- a would-be
decipherer must first try to guess why there are sequences like :
078,078,076,076,076,076 (happening two times) or
076,076,076,076,076,076,076 "
(End of J.F.'s message concerning Bobby's problem).
AND NOW, MY OWN CONCLUSION : Bobby Bryant is CHEATING !... His
so-called "challenge" is NOT EVEN FAIR and SIMILAR to the DISK'S
deciphering challenge !...
HE JUST TRIED to DEVIATE THE DISCUSSION FROM the "PROOFS" , with a
despicable TRICK of HIM!.
grapheus
Jacques Guy
> Here it is again:
(I won't snip it, just in case someone else wants to have
a go at it, and cannot find it)
>
> 001 002003 004 005006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 012015 016017 018
> 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 012 030 031032 033 034 035 036
> 037 012 021 038 039 040 041 042 028 043044 045046 047 004 025048017 049
> 050 051052 009 026 053017 054 055 056 057 058059052 004 060052 004 061
> 062063 064065 066067052 025 068 069 011 035 070 025071072 028 055
> 073074046 075 041041041076 077 078078076076076076061 025079065 080075 081
> 082017 083 068 084085086087 088 004 089090 091046 092 028 009 020 026 038
> 012 093 094 021 095096087065 097098 031032099 009 100 101 028 102 028 103
> 019 104 028 105 004 019 108 021 106107109 110 009 111 004 019 095112 113
> 114 115 031032099 116 117 118006 094 116 076076076076076076076 107 120 107
> 078078076076076076 028 115 035 121122 036 031119 123 026 031032099 124
> 095096087065 097098 028 009 097125 026 038 012 093 109 111 021 126 108025
> 041041041127046 116 094017 026 031032099 028 035 128129 026 130 009 128112
> 068 126 011 131 132 133 061 121134 135 026 094087 136 028 012 030 137 081
> 109017 084138 141 128139017 140 142 012 094 007 031032099 028 143 144 009
> 025048 021 145146052 106107109 084138 039 111 009 147 140 009 028 035
> 128129 026 130 009 025148 068 084085086087 045046 011 035 070 149 135 021
> 150151 152 004 029 153 154 111 155 073156046 061 062 157 011 035 158 050
> 066159086 160017 080075 081161 142 035 162 033 055 028 039 026 163148046
> 116 033 055 004 026 164 165 045 165 166046 014090 035 167 140 168 028 135
> 081 169170086 004 035 131 025171 055 026 172 009 068 062 173 011 031032046
> 033 034 143174 012 175 028 176 135 140 177
Thank you. I just had a cursory look at it. You can rest assured that
your money (however little, or much, it may be) is safe, very safe.
Even knowing the underlying language, and the topic of the message!
Or will grapheus beat me to the crock of gold? Zat is ze question.
Jacques Guy
[oh, don't mind if I barge in, I have to barge in somewhere]
My turn now. Here is a transliterated text. A real text, and
typing it in brought back fond memories. Now, the questions are:
1. what is its unicity distance?
2. does it allow for its decipherment?
3. what does it mean?
Now for the text:
na e vi e vi tu i gi o ma gi ni le le a vu a le le a vu a na ta zu a mo
te a mo ta la gi a na ga za e mo te a na gi se na i o ma gi te ra ta la
gi a te ra ne ze ne ze i ma i e ni ra ru a ta u te ra sa to go va i po
gi ta ri va ga te a to go re zi i o ma gi mo na te va mo na te i le le a
vu a mo ta gi se ni a ne na ra ni vu nu vu nu na po gi na ra ni mo ro go
i mo o so ma i e su ri a na ta zu a mo te a mo gu ro pu mo so na i mo ki
le i le le a vu a mo va ra i a la pa i a o ro go i mo o so tu i tu i su
ra sa va i le le a vu a mo va ra i a o a ro go i mo o so ma i e su ri i
tu pu ku mo na te a le i gu ro pu mo va ra i a o ne ze i a i ta u la vi
li li u ni a i so na i ne na gi si mu i le le a vu a mo va ra i a o i ta
pu si a a le i gu ro pu mo si vo ne na te i mo gi re te va u ma na o se
o se ga ra tu i tu i te o se o se ga ra ne na te i na ra ni ta ga no no
go mo ta u si vo mo ki le a pa la i ti ni si na la vi a i mu le i sa ga
ne na pe a na ta u mo ta u li li u mo va no ne na pe a na ne na ra vi ra
vi mo va ra i a la pa i le le a vu a i no vi o i va va na u pe i su ri i
gi ze ru a ka ra si vo ne na te i ka ra la vi i tu pu mu i so na i i no
vi gi na ne na na la ga te ra si vo so ko i ne na te i mo zu ri le le a
vu a i gu ro pu mo zu ri le le vu a ne na va i mo te a ne na vu su ga na
va i mo na ga ve ni na va i ne ka a mo go li mo pe i su ri na tu tu
If that's is not enough for the unicity distance to predict
a unique decipherment, tell me. I have 68 more pages of the stuff.
Bobby D. Bryant
> "o8TY" <o8...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<40093...@news.iprimus.com.au>...
>> So that symbol on the P.D. consisting of a small circle encircled by
I've heard of "proof by assertion", but this "proof by asserting 'why
not?'" is new to me.
Bobby D. Bryant
Yeah, sure.
> "Dear x..
So much for your claims about Shannon...
> -- The given "hints" are unsufficient on one point (Is the
> correspondence "sign/linguistical value" reciprocal ?)
And you have such hints when translating texts written in an unknown
language using an unknown writing system?
> and useless concerning the content of the message : in a Word-Script,
> the content is of no use!) -- a would-be decipherer must first try to
> guess why there are sequences like : 078,078,076,076,076,076 (happening
> two times) or 076,076,076,076,076,076,076 "
>
> (End of J.F.'s message concerning Bobby's problem).
>
> AND NOW, MY OWN CONCLUSION : Bobby Bryant is CHEATING !... His
> so-called "challenge" is NOT EVEN FAIR and SIMILAR to the DISK'S
> deciphering challenge !...
Of course I'm cheating! It's very unfair of me to offer a text of known
meaning, because handwaving k00ks can only deciphering stuff that isn't
subject to check! You'd have better luck deciphering a string of random
numbers.
> HE JUST TRIED to DEVIATE THE DISCUSSION FROM the "PROOFS" , with a
> despicable TRICK of HIM!.
You're the one that said Shannon had proven such texts to be decipherable.
Rubbing a counterexample in your face is hardly an avoidance strategy.
grapheus
SNIP
> > AND NOW, MY OWN CONCLUSION : Bobby Bryant is CHEATING !... His
> > so-called "challenge" is NOT EVEN FAIR and SIMILAR to the DISK'S
> > deciphering challenge !...
>
> Of course I'm cheating! It's very unfair of me to offer a text of known
> meaning, because handwaving k00ks can only deciphering stuff that isn't
> subject to check! You'd have better luck deciphering a string of random
> numbers.
> You're the one that said Shannon had proven such texts to be decipherable.
> Rubbing a counterexample in your face is hardly an avoidance strategy.
YOU ARE or COMPLETELY STUPID or a LIAR, Bobby, or BOTH !... You are
calling "counter-example" of a text WHICH CAN BE DECIPHERED
(following the Shannon's Formula) if one choses the right hypotheses
(i.e. the PHAISTOS DISK), a fabricated text which CANNOT BE DECIPHERED
following the Shannon's Formula!....
I call that a DESPICABLE TRICK, that's all!... You should be
ASHAMED of yourself !..
grapheus
Bobby D. Bryant
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:<pan.2004.01.18....@mail.utexas.edu>...
> SNIP
>
>> > AND NOW, MY OWN CONCLUSION : Bobby Bryant is CHEATING !... His
>> > so-called "challenge" is NOT EVEN FAIR and SIMILAR to the DISK'S
>> > deciphering challenge !...
>
>
>> Of course I'm cheating! It's very unfair of me to offer a text of
>> known meaning, because handwaving k00ks can only deciphering stuff that
>> isn't subject to check! You'd have better luck deciphering a string of
>> random numbers.
>> You're the one that said Shannon had proven such texts to be
>> decipherable. Rubbing a counterexample in your face is hardly an
>> avoidance strategy.
>
>
> YOU ARE or COMPLETELY STUPID or a LIAR, Bobby, or BOTH !... You are
> calling "counter-example" of a text WHICH CAN BE DECIPHERED (following
> the Shannon's Formula) if one choses the right hypotheses (i.e. the
> PHAISTOS DISK), a fabricated text which CANNOT BE DECIPHERED following
> the Shannon's Formula!....
>
> I call that a DESPICABLE TRICK, that's all!... You should be ASHAMED
> of yourself !..
I'll be happy to provide a more verbose version of the offer if you wish.
How many symbols do you need?
And speaking of symbols, there should be a little light on your keyboard
to tip you off when you accidentally hit the shift-lock key.
o8TY
less, and thought maybe you might like to provide your answer, either here
or above.
That symbol on the P.D. consisting of a small circle encircled by six
same-sized circles arranged within a larger circle is what exactly? Can you
support your claim?
o8TY
"Jacques Guy" <jg...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:400ADA...@alphalink.com.au...
> o8TY wrote:
> [oh, don't mind if I barge in, I have to barge in somewhere]
>
Be my guest barge-arse but please go and fix your computer clock.
grapheus
You are making a fool of yourself, Bobby !... Please, don't use
words that you IGNORE the TRUE MEANING of, like "PROOF" or
"COUNTER-EXAMPLE" !...
For this last one, shall I remind you that the "COUNTER-EXAMPLE" to a
statement has to RESPECT ALL the CONDITIONS mentioned in that
statement ?.. If one says :" the letter X never begins a word in
English", <xenophobia> is a COUNTER-EXAMPLE, not <exit> !... But you
are apparently too stupid or of too bad faith to understand that. So
to contradict the statement : "A text longer that the Shannon's
Unicity Distance" can be deciphered if one starts from the correct
hypotheses", you CITED as a "Counter-Example" a text NOT LONG ENOUGH
for it to reach the Shannon's Unicity Distance, taking into account
the script-system !!!!!!
What kind of English do you use, Bobby ?...
grapheus
grapheus
JUST RIDICULOUS !..
grapheus
grapheus
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 03:25:17 -0800, grapheus wrote:
>
> > "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> > news:<pan.2004.01.18....@mail.utexas.edu>...
>
> > SNIP
> >
> >> > AND NOW, MY OWN CONCLUSION : Bobby Bryant is CHEATING !... His
> >> > so-called "challenge" is NOT EVEN FAIR and SIMILAR to the DISK'S
> >> > deciphering challenge !...
> >
> >
> >> Of course I'm cheating! It's very unfair of me to offer a text of
> >> known meaning, because handwaving k00ks can only deciphering stuff that
> >> isn't subject to check! You'd have better luck deciphering a string of
> >> random numbers.
> >> You're the one that said Shannon had proven such texts to be
> >> decipherable. Rubbing a counterexample in your face is hardly an
> >> avoidance strategy.
> >
> >
> > YOU ARE or COMPLETELY STUPID or a LIAR, Bobby, or BOTH !... You are
> > calling "counter-example" of a text WHICH CAN BE DECIPHERED (following
> > the Shannon's Formula) if one choses the right hypotheses (i.e. the
> > PHAISTOS DISK), a fabricated text which CANNOT BE DECIPHERED following
> > the Shannon's Formula!....
> >
> > I call that a DESPICABLE TRICK, that's all!... You should be ASHAMED
> > of yourself !..
>
> I'll be happy to provide a more verbose version of the offer if you wish.
> How many symbols do you need?
Do you really know the Shannon's study ?..
Maybe Jacques Guy is ready to spend his time trying to solve your
cryptogram, but not me. What I want to demonstrate is solely that your
so-called "COUNTER-EXAMPLE3 is NOT what people call a
"COUNTER-EXAMPLE" !.. In your already published cryptogram, the
NUMBER of DIFFERENT SIGNS indicates that the script is a "WORD-SCRIPT"
(1 sign = 1 word and reciprocally).
DO YOU DENY THAT ?...
If yes, what is it ?..
And don't tell me to guess it !.. I repeat that I don't want to spend
weeks or months trying to find the "Correct Hypothesis" concerning the
type of script you used. If your aim is to demonstrate this point,
there is no problem : I FULLY AGREE that a lengthy preliminary wpork
is needed to decipher ANY cryptogram !... I never said the contrary
!..
grapheus
grapheus
> Yesterday in this thread I asked Grapheus the following question, more or
> less, and thought maybe you might like to provide your answer, either here
> or above.
I was not "in this thread", but in another thread, in the same Group,
and I did answer.
Did you see my answer ?..
grapheus
grapheus
THIS is NOT the PROBLEM !.. Your "challenge" is NOT SIMILAR to the
"Phaistos Disk's Challenge", that's all!
Please, learn the Shannon's Theory !..
>
>
> > HE JUST TRIED to DEVIATE THE DISCUSSION FROM the "PROOFS" , with a
> > despicable TRICK of HIM!.
>
> You're the one that said Shannon had proven such texts to be decipherable.
NOT "such texts", in the meaning you give to the word "SUCH"!.... I
wrote - and I repeat it for you - that Shannon has proved that the
length of the Phaistos Disk was sufficient to decipher it, if one was
starting from the "good hypotheses". And J. Faucounau's decipherment
has CONFIRMED it !..
> Rubbing a counterexample in your face is hardly an avoidance strategy.
But you DID'N'T PRESENT a "COUNTER-EXAMPLE" !... In your cryptogram,
the Shannon's Formula shows THAT IT CANNOT BE DECIPHERED, contrary to
what happens whith the text of the Phaistos Disk!..
Please learn the Shannon's Theory !...
grapheus
Jacques Guy
>
> Jacques Guy <jg...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message news:<400ADA...@alphalink.com.au>...
> > o8TY wrote:
> > [oh, don't mind if I barge in, I have to barge in somewhere]
> >
> >
> > My turn now. Here is a transliterated text. A real text, and
> > typing it in brought back fond memories. Now, the questions are:
> > 1. what is its unicity distance?
> > 2. does it allow for its decipherment?
> > 3. what does it mean?
> JUST RIDICULOUS !..
And what is ridiculous about it, mon bon Monsieur?
In my boundless generosity, I will even help you decipher it,
priming the pump, as it were. Here is the translation of its
beginning:
"The Story of Omagi and Leleavua
Leleavua was a man who had married a woman called Omagi."
I repeat my questions:
1. What is the unicity distance of the text?
2. Does it allow for its decipherment?
If so, decipher it. Why you even have a nice start to help you.
And remember to answer question 1. It would no look too good
if I had to answer it for you.
Here is the text again, just in case you'd lost it:
Look, my generosity truly knows no bounds. I'll even through
in a bit more:
ta u i gu ro pu mo si vo ne na te i i gi re te o se o se ga ra
mo va no mo ra vi ra vi to go te mu le mu le va te mu le mu le
i gu ro pu mo va ra i a mo va ra i la pa i o ma gi na ta lu me na
mo va ra i a i ni go o i sa mu le o i ta ri gi i gi ze ru a ka ra a
ta gu i na u a sa lu ki na ga ku na zi to go re zi a le i ro na
ta lu me i ro na ga za e mo va ra i a o ra tu a na mu te mu le ke
re ke re to go i na u mo no a ne ze i na la go na mu le ne ro o
i gu ro pu mo ta u va ra i a o i ta ri gi a u o i sa ga ne ka sa
ga ko o o i ti se i te ra u gi na va e i so na i a i mo na ni
na ga ku na zi ta u ka ra mu le
Bobby D. Bryant
> So that symbol on the P.D. consisting of a small circle encircled by
> five or six same-sized circles arranged within a larger circle is what
> exactly? Can you prove it?
It's the scribe's guild seal, certifying that the code he used is
unbreakable...
Bobby D. Bryant
Plain.
You said Shannon had proved that 225 symbols were enough, I provided, now
you squirm. Wouldn't it be easier to retract once than to squirm forever?
Bobby D. Bryant
You also forgot to answer my question.
Bobby D. Bryant
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 16:02:41 -0800, grapheus wrote:
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:<pan.2004.01.18....@mail.utexas.edu>...
>> On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 15:10:47 -0800, grapheus wrote:
>>
>>
>>> > AND NOW, MY OWN CONCLUSION : Bobby Bryant is CHEATING !... His
>> > so-called "challenge" is NOT EVEN FAIR and SIMILAR to the DISK'S
>> > deciphering challenge !...
>>
>> Of course I'm cheating! It's very unfair of me to offer a text of
>> known meaning, because handwaving k00ks can only deciphering stuff that
>> isn't subject to check!
>
> THIS is NOT the PROBLEM !.. Your "challenge" is NOT SIMILAR to the
> "Phaistos Disk's Challenge", that's all! Please, learn the Shannon's
> Theory !..
>
>> > HE JUST TRIED to DEVIATE THE DISCUSSION FROM the "PROOFS" , with a
>> > despicable TRICK of HIM!.
>>
>> You're the one that said Shannon had proven such texts to be
>> decipherable.
>
> NOT "such texts", in the meaning you give to the word "SUCH"!.... I
> wrote - and I repeat it for you - that Shannon has proved that the
> length of the Phaistos Disk was sufficient to decipher it,
Ah, I thought you meant that 225 symbols was enough for _any_ text. My
bad.
Now... how many symbols do you need for a text like the ones Jaques and I
are offering? We can, of course, provide you with as much text as you
require.
> if one was starting from the "good hypotheses".
And what happens if you start from a bad hypothesis? It your preferred
method proof against producing bogus translations?
> And J. Faucounau's decipherment has CONFIRMED it !..
>
>> Rubbing a counterexample in your face is hardly an avoidance strategy.
>
> But you DID'N'T PRESENT a "COUNTER-EXAMPLE" !... In your cryptogram,
> the Shannon's Formula shows THAT IT CANNOT BE DECIPHERED, contrary to
> what happens whith the text of the Phaistos Disk!.. Please learn the
> Shannon's Theory !...
Notice that Shannon only talks about whether it's theoretically possible
to decrypt a message; 'unicity' says *nothing* about how to go about it.
Notice also that unicity does not bound the amount of work required for a
decryption... Even if a text is theoretically decipherable, you may not
be able to decipher it before the sun turns cold.
Also, it's not clear whether the proof holds for deciphering unknown
languages. I suppose you could treat the PD inscription as a "cyphertext"
for some English plaintext, but would that meet Shannon's requirements?
http://www.mail-archive.com/crypto...@wasabisystems.com/msg03679.html
Worst news for you is that you can't even calculate unicity unless you
know the entropy of the plaintext. Kind of hard to know, when you don't
even know what language it's in. (And if you make the calculation based
on a guessed language, but get the wrong number because you guessed wrong,
you may think unicity says decryption is possible when it *actually* says
it's _im_possible.)
Appeals to Shannon do not seem to advance your cause.
Jacques Guy
> [added sci.lang]
Oh!
> Now... how many symbols do you need for a text like the ones Jaques and I
> are offering?
Mine is shorter than yours :-) It's only got 15 different symbols, or
55
depending on how you count them, so its unicity distance is much shorter
than yours, as I just said :-) :-| :- :
> > In your cryptogram,
> > the Shannon's Formula shows THAT IT CANNOT BE DECIPHERED, contrary to
> > what happens whith the text of the Phaistos Disk!
But in MINE Shannon's Formula shows THAT IT CAN BE DECIPHERED !
You don't even have to compute its UNICITY DISTANCE : it's
PATENTLY MUCH MUCH LESS THAN THAT OF ENGLISH !!!
> Also, it's not clear whether the proof holds for deciphering unknown
> languages.
Let's not get into that just now. There is fun to be had first.
For the poor denizens of sci.lang who have not had the
privilege of gazing upon MY WONDROUS CRYPTOGRAM, HERE IT IS !!!
(hyperventilating like this is good for you once in
a while)
na e vi e vi tu i gi o ma gi ni le le a vu a le le a vu a na
ta zu a mo te a mo ta la gi a na ga za e mo te a na gi se na
i o ma gi te ra ta la gi a te ra ne ze ne ze i ma i e ni ra
ru a ta u te ra sa to go va i po gi ta ri va ga te a to go
re zi i o ma gi mo na te va mo na te i le le a vu a mo ta gi
se ni a ne na ra ni vu nu vu nu na po gi na ra ni mo ro go i
mo o so ma i e su ri a na ta zu a mo te a mo gu ro pu mo so
na i mo ki le i le le a vu a mo va ra i a la pa i a o ro go
i mo o so tu i tu i su ra sa va i le le a vu a mo va ra i a
o a ro go i mo o so ma i e su ri i tu pu ku mo na te a le i
gu ro pu mo va ra i a o ne ze i a i ta u la vi li li u ni a
i so na i ne na gi si mu i le le a vu a mo va ra i a o i ta
pu si a a le i gu ro pu mo si vo ne na te i mo gi re te va u
ma na o se o se ga ra tu i tu i te o se o se ga ra ne na te
i na ra ni ta ga no no go mo ta u si vo mo ki le a pa la i
ti ni si na la vi a i mu le i sa ga ne na pe a na ta u mo ta
u li li u mo va no ne na pe a na ne na ra vi ra vi mo va ra
i a la pa i le le a vu a i no vi o i va va na u pe i su ri i
gi ze ru a ka ra si vo ne na te i ka ra la vi i tu pu mu i
so na i i no vi gi na ne na na la ga te ra si vo so ko i ne
na te i mo zu ri le le a vu a i gu ro pu mo zu ri le le vu a
ne na va i mo te a ne na vu su ga na va i mo na ga ve ni na
va i ne ka a mo go li mo pe i su ri na tu tu ta u i gu ro pu
Jacques Guy
> You said Shannon had proved that 225 symbols were enough, I provided, now
> you squirm. Wouldn't it be easier to retract once than to squirm forever?
That figure, a.k.a. unicity distance, is a function of the number of
different symbols in the message. I have come across several different
formulae for it. And incompatible (they yield different results).
When this topic first came up, only a few months ago, I remember coming
across a URL that gave that value as 19 or so for English. I just
found another that gives it as 25 whilst candidly admitting to
fudging. The formula it gives is U = 1/3.5 lg Z. I imagine that
"lg" is "log". They confess that 1/3.5 is a constant chosen so
as to make the result 25 (yes!). Got it! their Z is 26!
the base-2 log of 26! is 88.38, divide that by 3.5 you get 25 and
a bit. Still does not explain how Faucouneau got 580 for 117
different symbols, the base-2 log of 117! being 639.8.
Probably from another formula. The Devil knows which...
Jacques Guy
anything much reliable, or clear, about Shannon's
unicity distance.
Well, after much sifting through google hits, accompanied
by much cursing and swearing (about 12 mpm*), at long
painful last, here, folks:
"http://www.cs.adfa.edu.au/courses/ACSC2010/coursework/lectures/less03.html"
*mpm = 'merde!' per minute
grapheus
> grapheus wrote:
> >
> > Jacques Guy <jg...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message news:<400ADA...@alphalink.com.au>...
> > > o8TY wrote:
> > > [oh, don't mind if I barge in, I have to barge in somewhere]
> > >
> > >
> > > My turn now. Here is a transliterated text. A real text, and
> > > typing it in brought back fond memories. Now, the questions are:
>
> > > 1. what is its unicity distance?
> > > 2. does it allow for its decipherment?
> > > 3. what does it mean?
>
> > JUST RIDICULOUS !..
>
>
> And what is ridiculous about it, mon bon Monsieur?
>
That you may believe that I will spend years to learn some Maori or
similar language, in order to understand your text !..
> In my boundless generosity, I will even help you decipher it,
> priming the pump, as it were. Here is the translation of its
> beginning:
>
> "The Story of Omagi and Leleavua
>
> Leleavua was a man who had married a woman called Omagi."
>
> I repeat my questions:
>
> 1. What is the unicity distance of the text?
Probably c. 30 or 40.
> 2. Does it allow for its decipherment?
YES !.. IF one knows the LANGUAGE !..
>
> If so, decipher it. Why you even have a nice start to help you.
This is YOUR RIDICULOUS CLAIM !!!!!
grapheus
grapheus
> [added sci.lang]
>
>
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 16:02:41 -0800, grapheus wrote:
>
> > "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> > news:<pan.2004.01.18....@mail.utexas.edu>...
> >> On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 15:10:47 -0800, grapheus wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> > AND NOW, MY OWN CONCLUSION : Bobby Bryant is CHEATING !... His
> >> > so-called "challenge" is NOT EVEN FAIR and SIMILAR to the DISK'S
> >> > deciphering challenge !...
> >>
> >> Of course I'm cheating! It's very unfair of me to offer a text of
> >> known meaning, because handwaving k00ks can only deciphering stuff that
> >> isn't subject to check!
> >
> > THIS is NOT the PROBLEM !.. Your "challenge" is NOT SIMILAR to the
> > "Phaistos Disk's Challenge", that's all! Please, learn the Shannon's
> > Theory !..
> >
> >> > HE JUST TRIED to DEVIATE THE DISCUSSION FROM the "PROOFS" , with a
> >> > despicable TRICK of HIM!.
> >>
> >> You're the one that said Shannon had proven such texts to be
> >> decipherable.
> >
> > NOT "such texts", in the meaning you give to the word "SUCH"!.... I
> > wrote - and I repeat it for you - that Shannon has proved that the
> > length of the Phaistos Disk was sufficient to decipher it,
>
> Ah, I thought you meant that 225 symbols was enough for _any_ text. My
> bad.
This thought of yours shows, once again, your IGNARROGANCE !.. You are
emitting DEFINITE judgements upon WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW !... This is
typical of IGNARROGANCE versus SCIENTIFIC SPIRIT : a true SCIENTIST
makes the effort of BEING FULLY INFORMED before JUDGING. An
IGNARROGANT does NOT !.. You obviously don't know the Shannon's
papers !...
>
> And what happens if you start from a bad hypothesis?
I said it ten times, but you were not listening : If the text is
longer that the Unicity Distance, but less than two or three times,
one MAY reach some "decipherment" , but he has to VERIFY it WITH
EXTERNAL PROOFS !.. This is J.Faucounau has done : he deciphered the
Phaistos Disk in the mid-seventies, but waited years, until he got the
DEFINITE PROOFS that it was correct, to publish it ...
>>
>> Rubbing a counterexample in your face is hardly an avoidance
strategy.
> >
> > But you DID'N'T PRESENT a "COUNTER-EXAMPLE" !... In your cryptogram,
> > the Shannon's Formula shows THAT IT CANNOT BE DECIPHERED, contrary to
> > what happens whith the text of the Phaistos Disk!.. Please learn the
> > Shannon's Theory !...
>
> Notice that Shannon only talks about whether it's theoretically possible
> to decrypt a message; 'unicity' says *nothing* about how to go about it.
OF COURSE !.. WHO said the contrary ?..
>
> Notice also that unicity does not bound the amount of work required for a
> decryption... Even if a text is theoretically decipherable, you may not
> be able to decipher it before the sun turns cold.
Are you now "RE-INVENTING the WHEEL" ????
This is KNOWN SINCE A LONG TIME by people who have SERIOUSLY LOOKED at
Shannon's Work!..
>
> Also, it's not clear whether the proof holds for deciphering unknown
> languages.
It DEPENDS solely of the TYPE of PROOFS.
> I suppose you could treat the PD inscription as a "cyphertext"
> for some English plaintext, but would that meet Shannon's requirements?
I don't understand what you mean ... Of course, one has to treat the
Phaistos Disk as a "cyphertext", and MORE PRECISELY as a cyphertext
obtained by a "Simple Substitution" Code (i.e. 1 sign = 1 phonetic
element). Are you more ignorant than myself - who I am not a
specialist in decipherment- on these matters ?... Why then are you
pretending to be an "expert" ?..
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/crypto...@wasabisystems.com/msg03679.html
>
> Worst news for you is that you can't even calculate unicity unless you
> know the entropy of the plaintext.
Have you ever heard of what is called "AN ESTIMATE" in mathematics ?..
> Kind of hard to know, when you don't
> even know what language it's in. (And if you make the calculation based
> on a guessed language, but get the wrong number because you guessed wrong,
> you may think unicity says decryption is possible when it *actually* says
> it's _im_possible.)
RIDICULOUS !... Of course, with an UNKNOWN LANGUAGE and an UNKNOWN
SCRIPT one cannot calculate exactly the Unicity Distance !.. BUT he
can make an ESTIMATE of IT, which is generally SUFFICIENT !... In
the case of the Phaistos Disk, this estimate shows that the
text-length is a bit superior to the Unicity Distance, but in the case
of YOUR fabricated cryptogram, surely INFERIOR and probably
scandalously inferior !...
>
> Appeals to Shannon do not seem to advance your cause.
NON-SENSICAL REMARK of an IGNARROGANT !!!!
grapheus
grapheus
I did'n't answer because your question is MEANINGLESS !.. Because
if I tell you "I need a minimum of c.2,000 signs" , which is a
"reasonable estimate" following the Shannon's Formula, EVEN IF YOU
GIVE ME these 2,000 signs, I WILL NOT SPEND MY TIME SEARCHING for
solving your cryptogram !.. i'm not like Jacques Guy !...
And I notice that YOU ALSO forgot to answer my question : "DO YOU DENY
that the script you used IS a "WORD-SCRIPT" ?..."
grapheus
o8TY
"grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
news:337ae51f.04011...@posting.google.com...> > "grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
> > news:337ae51f.04011...@posting.google.com...snip
> > So that symbol on the P.D. consisting of a small circle encircled by
five or
> > six same-sized circles arranged within a larger circle is what exactly?
Can
> > you prove it?
>
> Thanks for this interesting question !..
> May I transform it in three other ones ?..
>
> FIRST QUESTION : "Without thinking to any decipherment, what is the
> MOST PROBABLE THING represented by the Sign you cited ( Called : Sign
> n° 12) ?"...
> Here are the answer given by several scholars having examined the
> problem : "a round shild" : Evans, Hempl, Reinach, Stawell, Rowe,
> Macalister, Ipsen, Muenzer -- "undetermined" : Pernier, (hesitating
> between "round shild" and "kernos"), Della Seta (idem) -- "The
> Pleiades" : L. Pomerance.
> It's obvious that the answer is then : Sign 12 must represent "a round
> shild" ...
>
> SECOND QUESTION : "Is the "Proto-Ionic Solution" in accordance with
> this "general opinion" ?"
> The answer is YES : A "round shild" is called in Ionian (and therefore
> must have been in Proto-Ionian) an "ASPIS", what gives -once the
> script has been shown to be ACROPHONIC- the phonetic value : AS.
> This value is PRECISELY the one given by the "Proto-Ionic Solution".
>
> THIRD QUESTION : "Can those IDENTIFICATION ("a round shild") and
> PHONETIC VALUE be considered as PROVED ?..
> The answer is YES, because THERE ARE A LOT OF PROOFS that the
> "Proto-Ionic Solution" is DEFINITELY CORRECT. So there is NO VALID
> REASON for not seing in the Sign n° 12 another thing than "a round
> shild".
>
> grapheus
So getting back to the essence of proof, are there any round shields known
that date from before the PD? Or perhaps more pertinent, are there any
round shields decorated with a circular array of circular discs known to
date from before the PD?
Bobby D. Bryant
> And I notice that YOU ALSO forgot to answer my question : "DO YOU DENY
> that the script you used IS a "WORD-SCRIPT" ?..."
Strictly speaking, no it isn't. (Any more would be telling...)