Quote: As the artificial Voynich text follows the “self-citation” hypothesis put forward by [You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.], this might have been viewed as evidence in favour of concluding that the manuscript has no semantic content; however, this is offset somewhat by our findings regarding transitions from Language A to Language B (see Figure 8 above). Their explanation of the self-citation hypothesis states that the difference between Language A and B is a natural side effect of the self-citation/modification of the text by the scribe over time.

Quote:The startling difference between A/B in our experiments, however, show this change to be very abrupt and occurs mostly in the same section (Herbal) which would seem an odd place for this to occur.You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. Our experiments showed the opposite in the sensitivity to the transitions between A and B, suggesting there is a real difference between them. It is also worthwhile to note the discourse segmentation scores suggest that some sections contain a higher sense of internal coherence than others (which makes sense, given the illustrative content) — if text were truly artificially generated using a method similar to what [You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.] proposed, this would seem to be an odd behaviour as we would expect a more consistent sense of coherence going through the text, not what we are witnessing with the Voynich.

1.  Currier A and Currier B are different.
   
2.  Sections are different from one another, for example we have long known that circular text behaves differently, and Q13 has even lower "variation" than other sections (TTR, entropy).