Editing Talk:2151: A/B
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ |
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
https://web.archive.org/web/20190516074849/https:/phys.org/news/2019-05-bristol-academic-voynich-code-century-old.html [[http://www.linkedin.com/in/Comet Comet]] 20:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC) | https://web.archive.org/web/20190516074849/https:/phys.org/news/2019-05-bristol-academic-voynich-code-century-old.html [[http://www.linkedin.com/in/Comet Comet]] 20:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC) | ||
− | I don’t see any meaningful connection to the Voynich manuscript. It is not true that they used “a stochastic methodology,” they [[https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/09/the-mysterious-voynich-manuscript-has-finally-been-decoded/ | + | I don’t see any meaningful connection to the Voynich manuscript. It is not true that they used “a stochastic methodology,” they [[claimed|https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/09/the-mysterious-voynich-manuscript-has-finally-been-decoded/]] to have realized it was abbreviations. Furthermore the claim that they decided it at all is widely dismissed as untrue. Finally, I don’t see any obvious reason to believe that these Linear A / Linear B testers are using a stochastic technique. I would recommend removing the tag for further elaboration on this connection unless the claim of similarity can be substantiated. |
== Request == | == Request == |