21-05-2026, 03:29 PM
(21-05-2026, 08:43 AM)Torsten wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The frequency-connectivity correlation arises through a feedback loop inherent in the copying process. Frequent words are more likely to be selected as copying templates, generating more variants; the existence of more variants increases the probability that members of that word family are selected in subsequent copying events. This self-reinforcing cycle ensures that the most frequently used words accumulate the most similar neighbors—precisely the pattern you document.
Sorry, I don't understand this argument.
Take for example
56 otedy 56 oteedy
2 ytedy 12 yteedy
If, after a suitable warm-up period, the words otedy and oteedy are equally frequent (as shown), and the mutation process can create ytedy from otedy, it should also create yteedy from oteedy. Then ytedy and yteedy should be equally frequent too. But their ratio is only 1:6.
As I see it, the only ways your model would create the above counts are (1) the mutation of the prefix o->y is sensitive to whether the suffix is edy or eedy, or vice-versa, or (2) the seed text had those four words in those approximate skewed ratios (maybe no ytedy at all), and the mutation rules cannot create enough ytedy from otedy or from yteedy to raise the ytedy:yteedy ratio above 1:6. Isn't that so?
If (1) is the case, then the method is even more complicated than it seemed at first.
If (2) is the case, then the method must be relying a lot more on the seed text being "Voynichese-like". Which essentially replaces the question "how could the Author have generated the VMS text" to "how could the Author have generated a seed text with the same vocabulary and word frequencies as as the VMS text".
No?
All the best, --stolfi