[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: VMs: semiotics & vms: homepage
Actually, I don't understand what you're saying. An example for this model
is the "Morse code", where there's a strict biunivocal correlation between
"letters" and "impulses". If you input a plain text in a PC, it's really
easy for the machine to convert it in morse code and viceversa.
Well, not quite: Morse code telegraphers also developed a culture of
abbreviations (such as "R" for "ready", which - in a way Professor Eco
would probably applaud - I believe turned into "Roger" in radio-speak). I
guess most media are likely to have a similar culture spring up around them
requiring "intervention" to be comprehended, so your "algorithm model" may
be a slightly idealistic example.
>It is quite easy to right an algorithm that reinserts vowels (or anything
>left out for that matter). Ambiguous cases can be resolved resorting to
>other algorithms, similar to syntax checkers. In fact, modern speech
>recognition programs are perfect examples of such algorithms.
Correct. Good point. :-)
...though I'd hesitate to call even state-of-the-art speech recognition
programmes "perfect" just yet! :-)
See above, there's a big difference between random and meaningless. One of
the "Golden Rules" of communication is that "it's impossible not to
communicate". Even a book containing absolutely random text has many
meanings (for a semiotic point of view): its images, the layout...
Errm.... "has many *possible* meanings", surely? :-9
Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying: