> Also, if the definition for that which can be compressed and
> uncompressed
> without loss of information now refers to "patterned" instead of
> "pattern"*
> what is your new definition of "pattern"?
>
What I said earlier may be have been unclear, but I haven't
changed my mind. I never said a pattern could be
compressed, I said patterns allow compression. Not the
same thing. I have been perfectly clear, in my own mind
if not in what I wrote, that what's fundamental here is the
numerical identity of information, and that more than one
instance of a given pattern is required for compressability.
I don't say that "patterns allow compression" is the only, or
even the best definition of "pattern". In fact, given the
misunderstanding generated here, I'm now fairly sure that
a clearer account of all this is required, and I'll be working
on it over the next few days. But that will be in the context
of my book chapter "Information and Reality", and not
aimed in the first instance at presenting to the list.
Robin
>
>
>