List,
I disagree! Translation of one stream of information into another stream of
information (except for the strict interpretation of the term "translation")
would seem to imply and state of matter which *translates* into another
state (matter to energy, for example) or for comparisons of different
streams of information as *translated* through a common property (the
position and the action of a proton as understood through a "hidden
variable").
I think Robin's response is out-of-line, rude, and downright wrong to boot.
Brett
At 10:37 AM 10/14/97 +0100, you wrote:
>> From: Dave K-P[SMTP:k.p@snet.net]
>>
>> At 03:59 AM 10/14/97 +0100, Robin Faichney wrote:
>>
>> >I don't agree. Why do you say translation is no less
>> >fundamental? I looks a great deal less so to me. As
>> >I already said, definitions are better simple. You do
>> >not generally define something by listing all the things
>> >you can do with it.
>>
>> Perhaps I read you wrong, but didn't you write "'pattern' is that
>> which
>> allows for compression" ?
>>
>Yes.
>
>> I did not infer that you were attempting to
>> define it, so I tacked on translation, too.
>>
>In my response to your first mention of translation, I said
>'The point was to define "pattern".' and I believe I used the
>word "define" or "definition" earlier as well, though I haven't
>checked. I've certainly used them several times in this
>thread. If you don't believe me, check the archives.
>
>> Sorry for this fruitless
>> sidetrack.
>>
>Right.
>
>> I am curious, though, as to why you perceive translation as
>> "less fundamental" than compression?
>>
>Translation only really applies to information in the context
>of human communications, which is a *very* small subset
>of information in general, while any kind of information
>whatsoever, if it is not perfectly random, can be
>compressed.
>
>> >If you think that information requires symbols you haven't
>> >grasped what's going on here.
>>
>> Granted, "symbols" was the completely wrong choice of word. Will
>> "things"
>> suffice for now? Like I said, this is a theory-in-the-making :-)
>>
>You are perfectly free to theorise about anything to your
>heart's content, but it is a simple matter of realism to
>recognise that some people have given these matters a
>great deal more thought than you. By all means, ignore
>what others have to say and work it out for yourself -- I
>often do that myself -- but then you can't simultaneously
>correspond with them about it, unless you pay scant
>attention to their responses -- which, come to think of it,
>you do seem to be doing to mine...
>
>Robin
>
Returning,
rBERTS%n
Rabble Sonnet Retort
The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement.
But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another
profound truth.
NIELS BOHR