>Translation seems to imply two (or more) information streams which compress
>into one symbol...sort-of a "translator" symbol. If the translator is not a
>pattern, then the translation would lose information from one form to the
>other.
This can and does happen.
>I would also assume that the nature of trannslation is that two (or more) >streams can each be compressed and uncompressed into a pattern without losing >information...translation would be dependent upon compression and thereby >"less fundamental".
Since translations can and do lose information, it would seem translator symbols are not pervasive, and that translation is not dependent upon compression... or is this unacceptable?
~kp