2. The similarity between glyphs as preliminary located to 'b' on one hand respectively to 'c' on the other hand established qualitative distinctions between glyps in 'b' in contrast to glyphs in 'c'. The meanings of the glyphs in 'b' reasonably then are (in general) different from the meanings of the glyphs in 'c'. And we gained guidance in defining where the borders between 'b' and 'c' were located.

The existence of other glyphs then those belonging to 'b' and 'c' became clear, glyphs I designated as belonging to 'a'. These glyphs have no obvious systematic similarity with those in 'b' and 'c'. Neither are there any obvious systematic internal similarities among those six different glyph sequences of 'a'.

3. By counting glyphs we reached an overview of the total extension of the calendar, 250 glyphs with 28 glyphs at the start and 28 at the end. This result was secured by the measure of π, because if we added the 64 glyphs from the start of side b (in H) to the beginning of the calendar, we reached 314 glyphs to the end of the calendar. Furthermore 20 + 314 glyphs covers the rest of side b.

This procedure illuminated the possibility that numbers could help us determine the exact borders between the sequences of 'a', 'b' and 'c'. The border line between 4b and 4c was adjusted so that the number of glyphs in 4c became 7. All c-sequences thereby have 7 glyphs.

I will now extend this kind of reasoning to see if by counting glyphs it is possible to exactly determine the rest of the borders between the sequences (of 'a', 'b' and 'c'). To begin with I concentrate on those 250 - 28 - 28 = 194 glyphs which constitute the central part of the calendar.