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

[Torsten]

I already did. The existence of a "network" of words with small edit distances is not in any way evidence that the text was generated by picking previous words and changing them.

If it comes to the evidence we actually say: "Nevertheless, an exhaustive scan of the parameter space (involving thousands of automatically analyzed text samples) verified the overall stability of the proposed algorithm. About 10–20% of the parameter space even yields excellent numerical conformity (< 10% relative error) with all considered key features of the real VMS text (entropy values, random walk exponents, token length distribution, etc.)." (Timm & Schinner 2019, p. 16).

So far you didn't said anything about the provided statistics. Please note the following comment of Prescott H. Currier: "The validity of text produced by any method at all must, I think, be judged against this statistical background" (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).

If it comes to the network of similar words we actually describe it as an observation: "The global VMS graph, as well as the corresponding subnetworks for individual folios, give more evidence for a fundamental connection between token frequency, number of similar tokens, and position within the text" (Timm & Schinner 2019, p. 6).

The self-citation method is build on this observations (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., p. 14-18). Until now you accept "that similar tokens appear near each other" but you didn't said anything about subnetworks for individual folios or about the connection between token frequency and number of similar tokens.

Instead of taking the time to reason through the argument you just denied the conclusions. Moreover, you ask for an observation, on which the self-citation method is build on, as evidence for the correctness of the self-citation method.

The test I proposed can show exactly whether this is how it was done.

You actually You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. "to check each word in the MS if there is a recent (how far back?) similar word (which max. edit distance?) from which it could be derived". With other words instead of checking the details of the argumentation you ask for more details. At the same time you complain that my papers "are very long....". Sorry, but this doesn't says anything about the validity of the argumentation in favor of self-citation method.

Moreover, since the self-citation method is based on this type of observations we even provide details for You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. For example, the most frequent tokens on folio You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. "are <qokeedy>, <qokedy>, and <okedy>, each one appearing 16 times. ... The You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., built around the three You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. of folio You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (restricted to their 33 most similar tokens), gives a first impression of an existing deep correlation between frequency, similarity, and spatial vicinity of tokens within the VMS text" (Timm & Schinner 2019, p. 5). The subnetwork of words with an edit distance of 1 covers 81.8 % of the text on folio f108. Therefore, the answer to your question is for folio You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. that for more than 80 % of the tokens (at least on the same folio) there is a previous similar word (with an edit distance of 1). Please note, the corresponding value for Currier A is 82 %, for Currier B 85.5 %, and for the whole VMS 84.7 % (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).