(22-05-2026, 01:31 PM)Dunsel wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The system is trying to maintain textual plausibility and family continuity, not maximize combinatorial exploration. The Voynich appears to behave similarly. The existence of hundreds of theoretical edit possibilities does not mean a human production process would actually use them.
I'm not sure I understand how would human production achieve this? It is trivial on a computer that can process the whole text up to the present moment, compute counts, check presence, etc. Humans can only physically look at past text and notice some words that are present there.
Could you implement the generation algorithm with the following restriction:
When generating a new word the only available source of information is up to 20 word tokens from the past text, chosen by any algorithm (just the preceding 20 word tokens, random 20 word tokens, pairs of adjacent tokens, it's up to you). The full list of previously generated words is not accessible, no statistics of the past text are accessible, no presence checks (has this word ever occurred in the text before), because these appear unrealistic for a human scribe, I think 20 is quite generous here. So, the function that generates a new word can use any kind of rules and some reasonably sized internal immutable data that the scribes could learn by heart or have as a reminder in front of them, but the only state input is a list of 20 word tokens. I think this much more realistically represents a real human being attempting to continue a text using a past sample and copy+mutate.