(27-05-2026, 12:29 PM)Dunsel wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So I will ask the same question back: why use copy + bigram/trigram mutation at all?
Why not? When formalizing intuitive processes you have to employ some algorithms. I was just mimicking the process that I used mostly effortlessly to write random Voynichese in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. I think I was just writing using the usual sequences and character combinations.
But I think I still failed to make my point clear, let me try again.
It is easy to show that various forms of copy and mutation can build something a bit like the Voynich Manuscript. Or Naibbe cipher can be used to build something a bit like the Voynich Manuscript. Or just You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. can build something a bit like the Voynich Manuscript. The problem is neither of these options will reproduce all the known features of the Voynich manuscript without adding a lot of complications. By showing that the result of method A can produce in some aspects a close resemblance to the result of unknown method B used by the actual author(s) we can't say anything about how close A and B are. I think the very example that your method, Naibbe cipher, my formalized method, my intuitive method all produce something that resembles the manuscript makes this very clear.
Only if the authors of the manuscript used some formal process to generate the text we can recreate a very close copy of some substantial portion of the manuscript and show that method B must have been the same or almost the same as method A. Unless this is the case all rule-based text-generation research has a very certain limit - it can list all possible ways of making something like the Voynich manuscript, it can't in principle prove that any of these methods were actually used.
Do you think this is correct or not?