RE: VMs: No stats no fun

["GC" <glenclaston@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Nick wrote:

> I'm not claiming that the statistics generated to date are meaningless or
> irrelevant - any theory (whether analytical or generative) would need to
> explain (or forensically reproduce) them, just as much as any other
> statistic. What I *am* claiming is that the statistical ambiguities
> observed may have arisen from the process of looking for primary
> properties
> amongst (largely) secondary artefacts - where any faint signal
> would likely
> be swamped by noise.
>
> That's not so much "coincidence" as the result of (I suspect) conscious
> misdirection on the original author's part. I believe we need to give him
> more credit... :-)

On this small point, we have found agreement.  I needed to go to a more
glyph-based transcription because I was looking for a small signal among the
white noise.  You are looking for one as well, though our tasks are
different.  We now have to things we agree on - that "pairification" exists
as a structure of the VMS, and that it probably masks a signal buried deep
within.  See, we do have things in common!  :-)

GC

______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list