The professor and the author are talking about the Voynich manuscript. The author states three theories wxplain the orgin of the Voynich manuscript. However, the professor disagree all arguments mentioned by the author.

First, the author states that  the manuscript is a genuine work on some scientific or magical subject composed in a complex secret code.However, the professor argues that Ascharm, who is a possible writer of the book, is unlikely be the writer . To be specific, Ascharm is an ordinary physician , and his work does not contain original ideas. For example, in his work little Herbal, it is just common plant based on well known sources. So , according to his knowledge , Ascharm is unlikely to be the writer.

Second， the author states that the manuscript is really a fake and its text has no real meaning.However, the professor argues that is is unnecssary for writer ,Kelly, in this theory to fool others. To be specific, it in unlikely for Kelly to fool the rich. Also, if he is the creater, he could just made the book looks like real code. The people in 19 century are easy to fool, there is no need for Kelly to use a amount of money to do so much work, made up alphabet, rather than a simply book.

Third, the author states that another theory is  the manuscriot is actually a modern fake created by Voynich himself. However, the professor argues that if he created himself, he should made it a century before the real one. To be specific, the modern technology is able to dataing the meteral using in the work. The volume and the ink are both 400 hundred years old.SO if he created the fake one, where could he get the real book and copy.