Re: VMs: Slightly modified VMS generator output

["Jeff" <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Nick Pelling incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote


> Hi John,
>
> At 19:14 02/12/2003 -0500, John Grove wrote:
> >         I don't get it, Jeff. This does not look like VMS to me. There
are no
> >words in the VMS that look like iiiny or ochet or fockor - and I doubt
there
> >are any shc, eesy, or roksh either. A couple of these might actually look
> >like VMS - but it looks like a very chaotic shot in the dark when it
> >happens.
>
> "ochet" sounds like a made-up South American mammal, but "fockor"? :-0
>
> Sheesh! [also not a VMs word, though "shesh" and "sheshdy" do appear once
> each] :-)
>
> Cheers, ....Nick Pelling.... [though "cheer" does appear four times] :-)
>
>


Every one here is making the unfounded assumption that because a word that
is generated by an algorithm does not appear in the VMS text it cannot be
valid. In the case of an artificial language the VMS will be a subset of a
universal set. If the method can generate every word in the subset then how
can it be said that the extra words are not part of the universal set that
the author chose not to select?

Jeff


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