RE: virus: Translation

Robin Faichney (r.j.faichney@stir.ac.uk)
Wed, 15 Oct 1997 20:11:35 +0100


> From: Brett Lane Robertson[SMTP:unameit@tctc.com]
>
> Robin,
>
> Elsewhere you say that a pattern reduces to a singularity. Two
> streams of
> information which are simultaneously translated into a third symbolic
> stream
> of information would require this translation stream to have certain
> properties. The symbolic stream of information must *not* be
> compressed
> into a singularity; for in it's expanded form, it shows a
> *relationship*
> between two streams of information, in addition to a pattern--or
> rather, the
> relationship IS the pattern but it is not a singularity (the way I see
> it),
> being a stream which, itself, could--in turn--be compressed into a
> pattern.
>
I find it very difficult to follow your thinking, but I'll try
to address some of the points that stand out, for me.

A pattern does not reduce to anything. Patterns allow
compression, but only where there is more than one
instance of the same pattern. But this terminology is
inherently misleading, because "patterned", ie non-
random, means more than one instance -- a random
stream can itself be considered a single instance of
a pattern, but it's not compressable, is not patterned.

There's a different between symbolic information, ie
that used in human communications, and the naturally-
occurring sort. The way you use "translation", as
applicable to the latter sort, where one stream is the
translation of another, they must share patterns. But
symbolic information streams can share references,
as well. There are no references in naturally-
occurring information.

I'll repeat what I said in my previous message in this
thread: translation does *not* involve compression.

Robin
>
>
>