[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: VMs: Testing Dr. Rugg's hoax theory
Zitat von Jacques Guy <jguy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> 7/09/2004 9:43:09 AM, elvogt@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >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
> >be no content.
> Unless it was presented as meaningful. "Hoax" is in the
> author's intent.
Well, the VM is obviously made to appear meaningful.
> >It doesn't address the possibility, that the VM was created this
> >way though.
> No indeed. That is irrelevant, totally irrelevant.
Irrelevant for what? I thought you were saying Rugg is wrong -- or are you
saying Rugg might be right, but "Hoax" is the wrong term for what has been done
with the VM?
> >*) What would you consider proof of the hypothesis that the VM does contain
> >meaningful content?
> Difficult. I have, I should think, given enough examples of
> what may look to you like gibberish, and yet is not.
Exactly my point: It's impossible to empirically prove the non-existance of
anything. If the VM holds no content, this fact is simply not possible to prove.
If the VM has content, this can be proven by deciphering it. _Theoretically_
one could prove the non-existance of content in the VM by testing and
discarding all possible encoding schemes, but this is obviously not feasible.
So, _if_ the VM is meaningless, the best anyone can do is to _show_ (ie
demonstrate with a reasonable degree of match) the method. Even if Rugg is
right in all regards, he won't be able to give you the hard proof you're asking
for, since it is hard even for you to define the criteria for this.
(Note: I'm not saying that Rugg is right or that he demonstrated all necessary
care in his work. I'm just surprised by the degree of hostility exhibited
towards him. Is it because everybody's afraid he might take away their pet
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying: