Re: virus: Rationality

Martz (martz@martz.demon.co.uk)
Thu, 6 Mar 1997 20:49:34 +0000

On Tue, 4 Mar 1997, Alexander Williams <thantos@alf.dec.com> wrote:
>Martz wrote:
>> Why? Are you trying to say that transfer loss doesn't occur in the
>> (any?) transit material?
>
>I'm saying that if loss occurs in a non-interpreted medium, then upon
>recipt you either have a valid executable or its broken.

I still don't get it. Sorry. If it's a non-interpreted medium then we're
talking about something else. This was about communication, which
implies interpretation. Even apart from that I'm still not sure what
you're saying. Could you give me an example of the sort of loss/medium
you mean?

>> But the meme is not interpreting itself. That's being done by some other
>> memes. Sort of like a piece of software (a compiler) interpreting
>> another piece of software (a program written for that compiler).
>
>However, we can talk about how to talk about things, self-modifying the
>interpretive memes ...

Yep. That's true. It can act in both of those manners.

-- 
Martz
martz@martz.demon.co.uk


For my public key, <mailto:m.traynor@ic.ac.uk> with 'Send public key' as subject
an automated reply will follow.


No more random quotes.