An Artificial Construction

[JoJo_Jost]

@dashstofsk Whenever you respond to my posts, you always act as if it’s been proven that the VMS is a hoax (if I’ve understood you correctly; correct me if I’m wrong).

So I took the time to look at what you’ve written and found this thread. There are methodological flaws here, but let’s set that aside for now:

It has been shown by Patrick Feaster (2020) that over 90 percent of word boundaries can be explained by 7 simple rules. This is strong evidence that the word boundaries were artificially inserted as an additional “cipher level.”
How exactly this was produced - whether as part of a generator or truly artificially using rules in a cipher - is open to debate in this context.

But it is also a strong indication that the spaces in the VMS are NOT real word boundaries - at the morphological level - which is what you’re arguing here -in fact, with certainty, because there is no natural language that could split words using just 7 rules. So there’s already a major catch here.

But not enough: You can also test this: If you ignore the spaces in Latin and split at random points (keeping the same word-length distribution), the assumed dependency between word beginnings and ends sometimes even collapses to values lower than those in the VMS! (and the same happens in MHD) So if you assume that the tokens are not “words,” your whole neat theory falls apart.

So, according to your logic, would Latin without spaces be “even more artificial” than VMS? The test does not measure a property of the construction. It measures a property of the cutting.

Thus, your findings say something entirely different from what you claim. They demonstrate the conspicuousness of the VMS spaces, not the artificiality of the words.