From: Yash (yashk2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Sat Jan 05 2002 - 10:02:51 MST
I'm not necessarily looking for compression, but rather on compression. But
I agree, when you try to put in too many things, your compression coding
essentially becomes an 'encryption'.
I'm looking to also compress the keys (not just one key, but several), with
each key giving easy access to the next, and so on., i.e. the key codes are
really an expanding algorithm themselves.
The efficiency I would like is compression, i.e. several bits of information
in a limited combination of symbols.
>I'm afraid the snake will eat it's own tail.
That's what it should do for efficiency - recursion /As above so below /
Cycles for change but also stability. It's fine.
It's an exercise in finding out what insights can be had into languages and
their 'constructions'.
Regards,
Yash.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On Behalf
Of Blunderov
"And when you 'write it down', aren't you using symbols with assigned
semantics to them?
Aren't you coding the knowledge in a certain way?"
Absolutely Yash. Which is why I wonder why it has to be "encrypted" as well!
Were these guys attempting to save parchment-space or something? Otherwise I
cannot see the point of encrypting something when the key for decrypting it
is, or is likely to become, public knowledge.
What sort of efficiency do you want from your putative language? Must it
convey meaning using the fewest possible symbols, or must it be efficient in
the sense of being universally spoken?
If the latter then I'm afraid there is only bad news awaiting you. One of
the problems is that of "language ego". Briefly a persons' idea of
themselves is intimately bound up with their mother tongue.
For example: a for instance) English speaking person who moves to another
English speaking country will always retain their original accent if the
move occurs after about the age of 12 years. Another example: a stutterer
who learns another language will not stutter when speaking that language.
Neither will he stutter if he sings, even if he sings in his mother tongue.
So: "language ego" exists. This implies that any "universal language", being
responsive to the culture in which it is used, will inflect itself to
reflect this. In time the language would break up into dialects, and, given
enough time, perhaps even totally new languages.
I'm afraid the snake will eat it's own tail.
Regards
Blunderov
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:38 MDT