🚀 go-pugleaf

<7fk8txn9nj.fsf@faith.csis.hku.hk>, Lee Sau Dan ~{@nJX6X~}
<sdlee@faith.csis.hku.hk> inimitably wrote:
>I suggest that you try this first:
>
>       English --> symbols --> English
>
>
>See if  you get  the same things  back.  Very often,  translations are
>lossy.  You lose information and  you introduce noise.  So, if you ask
>translator X  to translate a text  from language A to  language B, and
>then ask  translator Y (X not equal  to Y) to translate  the text back
>from language  B to A,  you'll get a  different version of  the "same"
>text in  language A.  Most ideas  are preserved, but  the subtlets are
>changed.

That's because the '-->' processes are not strictly one-one mappings. It
is fundamental to the 'universal intermediary' idea that the symbol set
must be large enough to ensure strict one-one mapping of all concepts.
You still wouldn't get the same words back in the case of English, which
is a special case due to its huge array of synonyms, but even the
subtleties would be preserved.
-- 
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124.
Did you hear about the hungry genetic engineer who made a pig of himself?