I need to explain my position. First point. Please look Chomsky hierarchy of grammar systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy It has 4 types of grammars. Current researches (including suggested by reviewer Jurafsky and Martin's book `Speech and language processing') are describing types 2 and 1 grammars. Reviewer described these grammar systems also. This grammars are suitable for computer languages and simplified processing natural language on computer. They are all restricted grammars. My article is an attempt to create type-0 grammar with recursively enumeration. This grammar cannot be processed on a Turing machine without hanging it (it is from Godel theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems ), so I had to create a hierarchical system of the machines for grammar processing in my article. This type is only type of unrestricted grammar. Second point. In my article types of identity is connected with the memory. The memory size of the system is finite, but information is increasing. So information should be packed. It is impossible to pack information without losses. So I described an algorithm of packing. The packing algorithm should have restricted and unrestricted operations, because it also feels pressure of Godel theorem. If memory has all operations as unrestricted it will hangs without any way of recovery. In psychology types of identity are described by Carl Jung https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung So I do not understand what mean reviewer by writing "In particular, the main claim for novelty here is the relevance of personality types, but this is stipulated with no justification". I agreed only with "Thirdly, there needs to be some way of evaluating the claim made by the paper - either experimentation, or a justification based on known data and a formal model (compared to existing models). This is absent." I really to not know how to check the theory from article in experiment and wrote about it in conclusion. Sincerely, Andrey Chistyakov