Re: AW: VMs: Character repetition

[Koontz John E <John.Koontz@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Gabriel Landini wrote:
> I also guess that if another character was the token separator and we
> are to believe that the peak in the vms is due to the same reason as in
> other languages, then the frequency of the token separator should be
> similar to that of the space. ...

Your arguments against other separator symbols are convincing.  I was
hypothesizing a case where there was no separator, where space was a noise
character, but the edges of "actual" tokens were clear to anyone knowing
the grammar of the tokens.  However, the repeated demonstrations that
deduced token grammars coincide with space-delimitation of tokens - in
most detail by Jorge Stolfi, I think - dispose of this possibility.

So, in general, all lines of argumentation - spacing, deduced grammars,
spectral analysis, and - as you remind me - similarity of text tokens and
label tokens - point to a single body of tokens made more or less explicit
by spacing.  The spacing may be somewhat vaguely indicated at places, but
it seems not to be a blind.

I think we agree as well that the generability of pseudo-tokens is no
argument for absence of a message.  Your arguments for there being a
message or content based on higher level spectral behavior seem reasonable
to me, too.

I reserve the right to think of things I haven't thought of yet,
naturally, but so far I think I'm on the same page.  The mechanism here is
adequate for encoding and/or encyphering a message.  Furthermore there
seems to be a message encoded and/or encyphered here somehow, but so far
we haven't figured out how.

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