(23-04-2017, 10:14 AM)Torsten wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Your approach is based on the idea that the VMS is random. Therefore my point is that VMS is not random or nearly random. If the VMS has meaning or not is indeed another question. 

I would not agree to your statement that different parts of the manuscript are generated slightly differently. In my eyes the opposite is true. The output of the generation method is changing over time. There is a transition from Currier A to Currier B. 
In the paper of Montemurro this is described as a network of relationships between the sections (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).
Herbal pages exists in Currrier A and in Currier B since after generating the pages in Currier A the pharmaceutical section the astronomical section were generated first.

Schinner has demonstrated in his You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. from 2007 that the probability of the occurrence of a similar word decreases with distance: "Interpreting normal texts as bit sequences yields deviations of little significance from a true (uncorrelated) random walk. For the VMS, this only holds on a small scale of approximately the average line length; beyond positive correlation build up: the presence/absence of a symbol appears to increase/decrease the tendency towards another occurrence." (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.: p. 105).
There was a local element in the text generation method used for the VMS. At least the words are not independent from other words on the same paragraph. Therefore it is not possible to simulate the VMS with a purely randomly generated text resulting in words used independently from each other.