Re: VMs: The Key -- [case against "qo"]

["Jeff" <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Nick Pelling incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 15 February 2004 20:37


> Hi Jeff,
>
> At 18:53 15/02/2004 +0000, Jeff wrote:
> >Eventually Nick you will verbose yourself out of all information content.
> >Reductions produce more likely verbose candidates. Do those also
represent
> >verbose combos?
>
> I think you're misunderstanding the nature of "information content" here.
> While replacing a common pair (like <qo>) with a new token shortens the
> length of the file (reducing the token count), it also increases the
number
> of possible tokens available at any time (increasing the information per
> token). So, the net result isn't simply a "reduction" of "information
> content", it's far more complex than that.
>
> Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....
>

Well yes but the only way this could work would be the abbreviation theory
you are suggesting. While I think the theory has merits, it also has many
problems to overcome. The tightness of structure would mean the underlying
language would be very rigidly controlled by a ruleset. It would have to be
a code within a code. If that is the case we may never get there anyway.

Have you made any progress on shorthand?

Jeff


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