From: Steele, Kirk A (SteeleKA@nafm.misawa.af.mil)
Date: Thu Jan 10 2002 - 17:54:29 MST
OK OK OK OK OK
I am hearing WAY TOO MUCH about the merits of R26
It is merely an artifact of the alphabet we evloved our memes with.
the Japanese have to aplabets and one severly huge icon listing. the
alphabets have 54 each. let's wander down discussions of r54 or
r108......................babble
Asserting a cardinality to the chaotically neverending array of phonemes and
meta-memes to which the human mind is capable of digressing is beyond silly.
Ubermensches UNITE. Put down this effluvia of excrement! AT ONCE!
Kirkasaurus Wrecks
-----Original Message-----
From: ben [mailto:ben@machinegod.dhs.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 1:06 PM
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: Re: GIGO RE: virus: Weird claims about PI - the sloka
I'm a fairly lacking mathematician, but here's my 2 cents worth:
Base 16 (hex) is nearly just as easy to picture mentally, and you can count
on your fingers in binary with a little practise (with a limit of 2047, not
10!) Base16 converts easily to binary (and vice-versa), which is why it's
used in programming.
Also, a base 26 alphabet is not neccessarily crucial to the english language
as it is spoken. think of all the sounds that need to be represented by a
combination of letters (ch, sh, ng, th...) A base 32 alphabet would be more
representative of the number of phenomes we are capable of producing, and
once again could be useful in numerical representation because of the easy
conversion to Base16.
-ben
----- Original Message -----
From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
To: <virus@lucifer.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 4:00 PM
Subject: RE: GIGO RE: virus: Weird claims about PI - the sloka
On 8 Jan 2002 at 12:42, Yash wrote:
One of the main problems is incompatible bases; base 10 seems to be
ideal for our mathematical use, and base 26 is alphabetically necessary
in the English language. In fact, a base of much less than 26 would
preclude our being able to create such a voluminous and
distinguishable vocabulary of relatively short words or represent all the
sounds we employ in speech, but a base of more than 10 would be a
monster to master for most people (our ten counting digits (fingers)
make base 10 more user friendly in the sense that if any genetic
predisposition exists for any base, it most probably exists for base 10).
For these reasons we keep numbers (arithmetic) and letters (language)
separate, and use a composite alphanumeric system.
>
> I think you're right.
>
> Except for the Vedic 'BS' part.
>
> Mnemonics do exist and there's nothing particularly 'BS' about that one.
> Well not if you subscribe to the 'Dates' and 'origin' which Hermit has
> mentioned himself on his own and got himself all excited about.
>
> Yash.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On Behalf
> Of Kalkor
>
> The impression I got was that Yash was proposing the construction of a
> language wherein everything has multiple meanings, and great depth of
> information can be stored. He used the vedic PI BS as an example.
>
> Yash, you might have better luck using analogy next time, as certain
people
> in here seem to have latched onto the validity of your example (or lack
> thereof) and missed the concept for which the example was given in the
first
> place...
>
> Maybe parable?
>
> I maintain that any language we were to create that fit these criteria
would
> just confuse the hell out of me, and I want no part of it, I tell you!!!!
> ;-}
>
> Kalkor
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:38 MDT