Re: VMs: Re: NSU review of Rugg (2003)...

[Gabriel Landini <G.Landini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Friday 19 December 2003 08:52, Gordon Rugg wrote:
> Possibility 1: meaningless gibberish only
> Possibility 2: some meaningless gibberish and some meaningful text
> Possibility 3: meaningful text only
>
> I'm saying that _if_ all the features of the VMS can be accounted for by
> possibility 1 above, then that's the most economical explanation.

I am still not to convinced with this. I think option 1 is undecidable because 
one cannot cover a truly meaningful text in:

any *possible* language (known & lost, including artificial ones) 
any *possible* encoding of those (good and bad [lossy] methods).

Cheers,

Gabriel

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