[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: VMs: Re: NSU review of Rugg (2003)...
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).
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying: