Discussion of "A possible generating algorithm of the Voynich manuscript"

[ReneZ]

The pseudo-code suggests that all paragraph-initial lines are generated from earlier paragraph-initial lines and all other lines are generated from earlier text on the same page.
This would make the proposed test: how many words actually comply with this, quite feasible to execute.

I have already answered this point in my last post. Anyway, even if you rephrase the "it must work like a computer simulation" argument, it is still wrong (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). We don't argue that the text was created by a computer program and we also don't argue that our program is able to simulate the complexity of human behavior.

I'm afraid that that is your over-simplification. I do not believe at all that the Voynich MS text can be simulated by a computer programme because it was definitely generated by a human being some 600 years ago.

What I did write was that you use your App as a key element in the evidence. To quote your paper:

The text sample investigated throughout this section was created with Algorithm
1. The parameter setup as well as the sample size (approximately 10000 tokens) correspond
to the VMS "Recipes" section (f103r-f116v). Figures 6 and 7 show that this
text reproduces both of Zipf's laws as exactly as the VMS (or any natural language).

and

The result for the generated text sample can be seen in Figure 8. The self-citation
process provides an excellent qualitative and even quantitative explanation for the
asymptotic deviation (observed in the VMS) from the straight random result F(l) =
l**0.5 (which characterizes natural language). On the other hand, it also reproduces
the close-range structure of the VMS text, i.e. the n-gram entropy values, with high
accuracy.

With respect to:

The pseudo-code suggests that all paragraph-initial lines are generated from earlier paragraph-initial lines and all other lines are generated from earlier text on the same page.
This would make the proposed test: how many words actually comply with this, quite feasible to execute.

I have already answered this point in my last post.

... do you mean the proposed test? I consider it the only possible proof that you could be right, and it would not be hard for you to do.

One other point I would like to respond to:

if similar tokens share the same meaning,

... I don't see any reason to believe that. This is not the case in any language I know of. Change a single letter and the meaning changes completely. Even in tonal languages, just change the tone and the meaning changes completely.

Again a more fundamental problem with the auto-copying process: everything that I see in the Voynich MS text speaks about planning. There is nothing arbitrary about it.

When thinking about the auto-copy process: of all the single-edit distance variations that would be possible for a word like qokeey , the ones that actually exist, and are used consistently, is only a very small percentage.