Discussion of "A possible generating algorithm of the Voynich manuscript"

[ReneZ]

• I have executed this type of test in chapter 3 "Evidence" in Timm 2014 for two control samples: "In this paper all words occurring seven times and all words occurring eight times are used as two separate control samples. ..." (Timm 2015, p. 12ff).
  

• I have presented the statics for the example in Figure 1: The core network for page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. contains 189 out of 277 words (=68.2 %). They represent 402 token out of 491 tokens (=81.8 %). Similar subnets can be constructed for all pages, but, of course, they are more instructive for pages containing lots of text. We even provide network graphs for all pages containing at least some lines in 1.3 "Graphs for individual pages" (see Additional Materials).
  

• I have presented the network graph for a single page as well as for the whole text (see Timm & Schinner 2019, p. 4).
  

• I have published the network graphs for any page in the VMS. You can just open the gephi projects (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) for any page you want and calculate the number of word types and word tokens within the core network with a edit distance of 1: 
  
• For instance the core network for page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. contains 189 out of 277 words (=68.2 %). They represent 402 token out of 491 tokens (=81.8 %).  
  
• The core network for page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. contains 239 out of 354 words (=67.5 %). They represent 485 token out of 613 tokens (=79.1 %). 
  
• The core network for page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. contains 172 out of 267 words (=66.9 %). They represent 305 token out of 394 tokens (=77.4 %).
  
• ...
  

If you can't accept this answers for any reason you should explain yourself. Just to ignore the answers and too loop over your question doesn't help.

I already did. The existence of a "network" of words with small edit distances is not in any way evidence that the text was generated by picking previous words and changing them.

The test I proposed can show exactly whether this is how it was done.
Not only "whether" but also details of the method (if it works):
- which edit distance was typically applied?
- how much can be explained with an edit distance of 1, 2, 3, etc?

If this were my theory, I would be extremely curious about these things.