Speculative fraud hypothesis

[Jorge_Stolfi]

Isn't the idea that you are self-copying something you don't understand?

Yes, of course.

The words have an overwhelming probability of 'mutating' by simple errors

I am not speaking of "errors" (which is a meaningless term in this context), but of words that do not have the proper structure.  Here is an old analysis of mine.  (The "?" superscript means "either 0 or 1 instances of a symbol from this set".)

   
   
   
   

How exactly does the TnT model give rise to this word structure?

All the best,  --jorge