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

[Torsten]

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.

Do you really want to argue that research about the Voynich manuscript is only of interest as long as no conclusions are drawn?

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.

With other words you reject my research just because of your first impression? Moreover, you write that you expect arbitrary choices and at the same time you are arguing with You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Have you tried the suggested You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.? By executing this experiment you could check yourself if it is indeed efficient to invent new arbitrary modifications rules all the time and if it is indeed necessary to limit the modifications to small changes.

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.

The word structure is explained in Timm & Schinner 2019, p. 10f.

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

Indeed, the changes are not arbitrary (see Timm & Schinner 2019, p. 3ff).

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.

You wrote You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. "I think one can only analyse all proposed solutions by themselves and see if they 'work'." Now you use a discussion about a theory from 2004, your first impression from 2014, a word for word substitution cipher hypotheses - which you have You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in 2015 - and phrases like "a few other things" as argumentation against a paper from 2019.