29-10-2019, 09:17 AM
I didn't mean to say that the long papers are bad. Quite the contrary: they contain a lot of valuable statistics. It is just that it makes it more time-consuming to ingest it all.
The reason for all my questions and doubts can be explained as follows.
Were the auto-copying hypothesis presented as a hypothesis that is still being further analysed, then I have no problem whatsover. It is of interest. The statistics are of interest.
If it is presented as "the way in which the MS was produced" and evidence/proof that the MS is meaningless, then I want to understand better.
From the very first mention of the idea I considered that this process is too arbitrary and does not explain some of the most important properties of the text. I still think so but it is qualitative and not sufficient to decide if it can be true or not.
The near-repetitions are explained, the appearance of Eva-f and p primarily (but not at all exclusively) in top lines of paragraphs is explained, but the word structure is not. And there are a few pother things, already mentioned before.
So I try to imagine how this would have arisen.
This puts some constraints on how the system is initialised and how the changes are applied.
The changes during auto-copying are clearly not at all arbitrary
The discussion is quite similar to that in 2004 or so when Gordon Rugg presented his method.
To take into account the known properties of the text, the method will require numerous dedicated adaptations, and here is where Occam's razor comes into play. Not that it is proof of anything. It is a sign.
The reason for all my questions and doubts can be explained as follows.
Were the auto-copying hypothesis presented as a hypothesis that is still being further analysed, then I have no problem whatsover. It is of interest. The statistics are of interest.
If it is presented as "the way in which the MS was produced" and evidence/proof that the MS is meaningless, then I want to understand better.
From the very first mention of the idea I considered that this process is too arbitrary and does not explain some of the most important properties of the text. I still think so but it is qualitative and not sufficient to decide if it can be true or not.
The near-repetitions are explained, the appearance of Eva-f and p primarily (but not at all exclusively) in top lines of paragraphs is explained, but the word structure is not. And there are a few pother things, already mentioned before.
So I try to imagine how this would have arisen.
This puts some constraints on how the system is initialised and how the changes are applied.
The changes during auto-copying are clearly not at all arbitrary
The discussion is quite similar to that in 2004 or so when Gordon Rugg presented his method.
To take into account the known properties of the text, the method will require numerous dedicated adaptations, and here is where Occam's razor comes into play. Not that it is proof of anything. It is a sign.