Re: VMs: Testing Dr. Rugg's hoax theory

[elvogt@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Zitat von Jacques Guy <jguy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> 7/09/2004 8:26:24 AM, elvogt@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> >Just out of curiosity -- what would you accept as proof that the VM (or any
> 
> >other coded manuscript) is a hoax?
> 
> Think. A hoax has to be meaningful. For instance "The moon is made
> of green cheese, little green men from Alpha Centauri told me".
> ...
> Take now the Codex Seraphinianus. Is it a hoax?
> Think about it and tell us.

To answer that I'd have to be able to decipher it.

> 

If I understand correctly, you're saying that to be a hoax, it must 
contain "meaningful content", ie some statements which the author knows not be 
true. According to this definition, even if the VM was composed with the method 
proposed by Rugg, it couldn't qualify as a hoax, because there obviously would 
be no content. It doesn't address the possibility, that the VM was created this 
way though.

I took a broader approach, considering everything a hoax "which is, on purpose, 
made to look like it had contents which it has not" -- a deception, a trick, a 
swindle. In that case the VM would qualify (assuming the Rugg approach) for a 
hoax.

In any case, let me rephrase my question:

*) What would you consider proof of the hypothesis that the VM does contain no 
meaningful content?

*) How could one prove the validity of Rugg's approach?

Cheers,

   Elmar


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