[Article] A possible generating algorithm of the Voynich manuscript

[Torsten]

The problem is not with the statistics or the existence of patterns.

With other words you don't see any mistakes in the facts provided in the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.?

The problem is with the suggestion that these patterns are the result of a conscious effort by the author(s) to create these patterns, i.e. the auto-copying hypothesis ('intentional'). 

It is simply not possible to write something unintentional (without thinking). Keep in mind that the main goal was to write the text as efficient as possible and that therefore only limited effort was taken in hiding these patterns.

These patterns are not so pronounced that explaining them can explain the whole text. It just explains a fraction of the text. 

The You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and statistics demonstrate that there is nothing else than just similar words. If you think otherwise it should be easy to point to something that is not explainable as local repeated elements.

The possibility that they are a side effect of some other process is not really addressed ('unintentional'). I am not aware of any evidence that speaks in favour of the intentional option, over the unintentional option.

You are not only moving the goalposts (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) you also ask for an impossible proof. The VMS is characterized by very specific patterns and statistics. Keep in mind that a method must explain the deep correlation between frequency, similarity, and spatial vicinity of tokens within the VMS text. It is therefore reasonable to assume that only one method results in this specific patterns and statistics.

(To argue that there might be some other method also implies that you accept the self-citation method as possible. This would contradict your previous statement that self-citation only explains a fraction of the text.)

The network of words with their edit distances only shows the existing words.
One has to imagine that inside this network there is a much denser network of other words, also with edit distance one (1) to the existing words, that do not occur in the text. 

Effectively, the network of existing words consists of very specific 'paths' through this denser network

This is an argument in favor of the self-citation method. Only with a systematic approach it would be possible to use every thinkable way to modify the tokens. Keep in mind that the self-citation method was used since copying is the most effective way to generate text. There is simply no reason to assume that the scribe put some effort in searching for missing token variants. 

I find it hard to believe that this network of paths is just the result of chance.

There is far more planning and system in the MS text than this.

I find it hard to believe that your theory could be true; therefore your theory must be false is not a valid argument (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). 

Anyway, nobody is arguing that the network is the result of chance. We are arguing that high-frequency tokens also tend to have high numbers of similar words and  that isolated" words (i.e., unconnected nodes in the graph) usually appear just once in the entire VMS. With other the network behaves as expected for the self-citation method.