Why and how the text could be Bavarian

[oshfdk]

I don't understand that, too. In every post I've written, I've explained exactly what I did and how I did it. All of these examples here were perfectly understandable even without any code—because you don’t need code for them. (In fact, an AI can’t even resolve word repetitions—for example, with “qokedy”; I’ve tried it, and it just spits out garbage; those were created “by hand.”)

None of these pieces of evidence—showing that these peculiarities of the VMS could simply be language in my model—have been refuted so far—because they can’t be refuted. But even on this point, only “personal feelings” have been expressed, not refutations.

The way I see it, looking logical and plausible is not a proof of anything. One can easily find schematics for a perpetual motion machine, there are thousands of designs on the Internet. Most of them look very logical, their creators put a lot of effort into them. None of them work.

As far as I remember, nothing of what you have published so far in this thread looks like "evidence". At most it can be called "demonstration of principles". Evidence would be actually reproducing the statistics of the manuscript using a large source Bavarian text and a set of rules that anyone can follow and achieve the same result. This will show how good the method is. Until then, there is nothing to refute and not much to even argue about. Inventing a short phrase to explain qokedy qokedy or showing how some specific Bavarian words result in this or that pattern are very good logical riddles, but they don't prove the method, they only show it. It's like starting a perpetual motion machine, making it go one round and then saying "so, here's your proof". Make it go for a month in an enclosed space with no external source of low entropy and then we can talk. Feed 10000 characters of a Bavarian text to your method, show the result and this would amount to proving something.