(13-04-2017, 08:35 PM)Koen Gh. wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The problem, in my opinion, is that it's impossible to prove that the text does not carry meaning. Even if someone writes a watertight program that mimics how a 15th century monk could have generated the text without losing too much time to the generating process itself (as is still a problem in this proposed solution), then still it is only shown that it could be meaningless.
Unless I'm mistaken, it could be proven that is has meaning, but it can never be proven that it doesn't.
This is an misunderstanding. You can show it is textual nonsense.
If most of the text is copied and this process is iterative,
then I am sure you can agree the text is a copy process and the meaning of such text
1. is art
2. bears no grammatical meaning