Heap's Law

[Wladimir D]

ReneZ: To characterise the text in this manner, what one could do is take a group of words (say 1000) anywhere in the MS, and then inspect the following words (a smaller group, e.g. 100) to see how many of them occur in the previous 1000 and how many are new. One can do this in two different ways, either counting all words of the 100, or only the unique words of the 100.

DD
Or, possibly, by comparing blocks of text to one another - either page by page, or even paragraph by paragraph. This could be a way to identify "subjects" within the corpus. 

 I am currently engaged in such an analysis, but this is a huge amount of work.
I want to give one example, which is based on the intersection of words in texts corresponding to large and small plants. Take the pages You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (76 words) and f102v1 (64 words). The intersection is three (3) words.
Now compare the intersection with other arbitrary pages that are taken from other sections. I understand that for more correct results it is necessary to introduce a correction factor that takes into account the probability and is related to the difference in the sizes of the compared texts. But I simplify it, and still a clear illustration will be obtained. Results:
F1r – f102v1    11 words
F84r – f102v1   11 words
F105r– f102v1   11 words  
 Such an increase can be explained, but three other results are surprising.
F67r1 – f102v1   10 words
F68r2 – f102v1   6 words
F70v2 – f102v1   7 words

 For comparison, the text f19r, in which more words than in f102v1 gives a decrease in intersecting words:
F67r1 – You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.   5 words
F68r2 – f19r   3 words

And only in fish there is an increase:
f70v2- You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. 10 words
It turns out that the intersection of words on pages that have identical plants is less than on pages not related by identical patterns.
Therefore, it is necessary: 1 or to call into question the conclusions of Montemurro and Co. about the binding of the text to the figure.
2 or we do not correctly understand the astronomical section and the zodiacal section. For example - the stars are not stars, but symbols of flowers.