Editing Final Report 2010 (section)

====Discussion====
Our results indicate that most of the code segments occur around the expected frequency for each of the text types, so we can’t really determine if the code belongs to any of the tested text types. However, from inspection of the results, the code is more likely to be divided into 3 word long fragments than 4 word long initialisms. Additionally, we also considered that the code could be backwards. Typically, the results favoured forward segments over the backwards segments, although there were occasions when the backwards segment did appear more often than the forwards segment.

Of particular note was that neither of the 4 or 3 character long code segments appeared much at all in the Rubaiyat. This seems quite highly suspect, and there is a possibility that someone intentionally created the mystery code in such a way that this would happen because is it very unlikely that almost none of the code segments would be found in the Rubaiyat. More testing is probably needed to prove this by testing more poems, and possibly truncating other poems to the same size as the Rubaiyat.

To test if The Rubaiyat results were meaningful or just an artifact of length, the same assorted poetry texts were truncated to a size of 400 to 500 lines down from several thousand (a similar size to The Rubaiyat text file) and then the same tests were run again. The results for this are shown in the graphs below.

[[Image:compare poems1.jpg|center|530px]]


[[Image:compare poems2.jpg|left|530px]]
[[Image:compare poems3.jpg|right|530px]]


















[[Image:compare poems4.jpg|center|530px]]

The graphs show the expected probability of finding each sequence in English text on the left, followed by the actual proportion that occurred in The Rubaiyat as well as the truncated poetry texts. The graphs show that for the truncated poetry texts, there are some cases where the initialism is not found at all, but more often than not the initialism sequence is found at close to the expected amount. These results indicate that the abnormal results found for The Rubaiyat aren't likely to be an artifact of length and is more likely intentional.

These exact initialism results indicate that the Somerton man’s code could be a substitution cipher of initialisms found in the Rubaiyat, based on the fact that it is incredibly unlikely that none of the tested code segments were found in the Rubaiyat. To further test this theory, we began testing for patterns of initialisms to see if there was any correlation between texts and attempt to narrow down what the code has been substituted from.