[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: voynich@xxxxxxxx*Subject*: Re: OT - Enough to Gag a Maggot*From*: Dennis <ixohoxi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 09:23:42 -0500*Delivered-to*: reeds@research.att.com*References*: <00Oct20.154007pdt.118084@gateway.madera.k12.ca.us> <39F4143A.DC6B3C36@mail.msen.com> <39F39D2F.AD1918A6@micro-net.com> <39F45ED4.69C721FD@nctimes.net>*Sender*: jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Mark Perakh wrote: > > Re: Dennis' remark on the Bible code: The paper on the so-called Bible code was > printed in 94 in Statistical Science which is published by Institute of Mathematical > Statistics. The editor (at that time R. Kass) supplied a comment saying essentially > that the referees could not identify the flaws in the work of the three authors > (Rips, Witztum, Rosenberg) so maybe some readers would be willing to invest time to > find those flaws. Hmm. I asked a while back whether there was any mathematical way to prove whether a writing system could be shown to be ambiguous by some sort of mathematics. A couple of people mentioned the "unicity distance" of information theory, but this shows that in most cases a string of around 50 characters is unambiguous, so this isn't what we need. As I've observed before, one usually debunks these systems by reduction to absurdity and/or by showing contradiction of known facts, usually historical or linguistic. The Bible Code was reduced to absurdity by using Rips et. al.'s method to read predictions of the assassinations of world leaders into the text of Moby Dick. This isn't mathematics, of course, so the editor might well not have known what to do. > Indeed, in May issue of 99 a paper by McKay et al was published in > the same journal, completely demolishing the statistical procedure of Rips et al, > and the same Kass supplied a comment saying that the puzzle has been successfully > solved. But then this says that it *was* shown to be fallacious by mathematics. Could you give us some more details? > Well, a Russian proverb is that fools are > neither sown nor harvested, by themselves them grow. I'll have to remember that one... Dennis

**Follow-Ups**:**Bible code maths, was Re: OT - Enough to Gag a Maggot***From:*Rene Zandbergen

**Re: OT - Enough to Gag a Maggot***From:*mskala

**References**:**Re: OT - Enough to Gag a Maggot***From:*Bruce Grant

**Re: OT - Enough to Gag a Maggot***From:*Dennis

**Re: OT - Enough to Gag a Maggot***From:*Mark Perakh

- Prev by Date:
**Re: [Fwd: Voynich Manuscript + James Hampton]** - Next by Date:
**Bible code maths, was Re: OT - Enough to Gag a Maggot** - Previous by thread:
**Re: OT - Enough to Gag a Maggot** - Next by thread:
**Bible code maths, was Re: OT - Enough to Gag a Maggot** - Index(es):