(03-06-2019, 07:20 PM)ReneZ wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(03-06-2019, 05:32 PM)Torsten wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(03-06-2019, 05:55 AM)ReneZ wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To assume that only one method can result in the patterns observed is certainly not acceptable.
[...]
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.
I don't agree at all.
If the method was arbitrary, lots and lots of other words with an edit distance of 1 or 2 from the existing ones would have been generated.
Randomness does not have to be uniform, it can be subject to rules, constraints and preferences. The new paper acknowledges the existence of something like the Curve-Line system and any number of preferences for esthetic reasons and whatever the scribe's inspiration was which are impossible to model accurately. This is vague enough to evade falsification.
(Moderators: please move the discussion to the other thread if it makes more sense to keep the news thread separate.)