On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 12:16:55 AM UTC+5:30, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 5/29/2016 2:12 AM, Rustom Mody wrote:
>
> > In short that a € costs more than a $ is a combination of the factors
> > - a natural cause -- there are a million chars to encode (lets assume that
> > the
> > million of Unicode
Am 29.05.16 um 20:46 schrieb Terry Reedy:
On 5/29/2016 2:12 AM, Rustom Mody wrote:
I also note that in English text, a (phoneme) char conveys
about 6 bits of information,
6 bits for a letter of English? That is way too much. Claude Shannon
estimated something between 1 and 2 bits. You can try
On 5/29/2016 2:12 AM, Rustom Mody wrote:
In short that a € costs more than a $ is a combination of the factors
- a natural cause -- there are a million chars to encode (lets assume that the
million of Unicode is somehow God-given AS A SET)
- an artificial political one -- out of the million-fact
Gregory Ewing :
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> And I thought that the Turing model was based on binary:
>
> It's not based on any particular encoding. When you define a
> Turing machine, you can pick any set of symbols you want for
> your alphabet. The model doesn't specify how they're
> represented.
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
And I thought that the Turing model was based on binary:
It's not based on any particular encoding. When you define a
Turing machine, you can pick any set of symbols you want for
your alphabet. The model doesn't specify how they're
represented.
--
Greg
--
https://mail.py
On Sun, 29 May 2016 15:37:35 +1000, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> [1] The worst being that my US English keyboard doesn't have a proper
> curly apostrophe, forcing me to use a straight ' mark in my name like
> some sort of animal.
What do you expect after all US is standard engineering speak for Un
On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 11:07:51 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2016 02:46 pm, Rustom Mody wrote:
>
> [...]
> > In idealized, simplified models like Turing models where
> > 3 is 111
> > 7 is 111
> > 100, 8364 etc I wont try to write but you get the idea!
> > its quite
On Sat, 28 May 2016 02:46 pm, Rustom Mody wrote:
[...]
> In idealized, simplified models like Turing models where
> 3 is 111
> 7 is 111
> 100, 8364 etc I wont try to write but you get the idea!
> its quite clear that bigger numbers cost more than smaller ones
I'm not sure that a tally (base-1
On Sat, May 28, 2016, at 00:46, Rustom Mody wrote:
> Which also means that if the Chinese were to have more say in the
> design of Unicode/ UTF-8 they would likely not waste swathes of prime
> real-estate for almost never used control characters just in the name
> of ASCII compliance
There are onl
On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 11:16:39 AM UTC-4, wxjm...@gmail.com wrote:
> Le samedi 28 mai 2016 06:47:11 UTC+2, Rustom Mody a écrit :
>
> > ...
> > [which AIUI is jmf's principal error]
> >
> > ...
>
> I'm very confident. It's only a question of time until
> the rest of the world dive into this
On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 9:39:19 PM UTC+5:30, Random832 wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2016, at 11:53, Rustom Mody wrote:
> > And coding systems are VERY political.
> > Sure what characters are put in (and not) is political
> > But more invisible but equally political is the collating order.
> >
> > e
11 matches
Mail list logo
