Re: Zero-entropy (was Re: FINAL QUESTION: your natlangs...)
|From:||Tommie Powell <tommiepowell@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, October 7, 1998, 22:55|
From: Terrence Donnelly <pag000@...>
To: Multiple recipients of list CONLANG <CONLANG@...>
Date: Wednesday, October 07, 1998 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: Zero-entropy (was Re: FINAL QUESTION: your natlangs...)
>At 06:53 AM 10/7/98 -0000, Tommie Powell wrote:
>>In 1962, some mathematician at NSA "proved" that a "zero-entropy" language
>>would be theoretically possible. In other words, if you had such a
>>language, then, no matter how you jumbled up a sentence's symbols, the
>>result would be some other sentence that made sense.
>>There's no such thing as an unbreakable code, but such a language wouldhave
I visited your website and had Bogomoli fun there.
One of my buddies in military intelligence had a very
similar idea, but I doubt he ever did anything with it.
>>the effect of making even the simplest of codes "unbreakable" because any
>>would-be code-breaker would never get any result that he could discard as
>>nonsensical (and hence he would never be able to rule out any possible
>>notion of how the messages were being encoded).
>I realize from reading this that it is a good description of the principle
>behind my "quantum language" Bogomol. I didn't realize it was actually
>possible! (Since the Bogomoli are intelligent insects, I didn't place a
>high value on plausibility in constructing it.)
>In Bogomol, words can have many different meanings, and the proper reading
>of each word isn't determined until the end of the utterance by a "ranking
>syllable". If Bogomol were a code, you could transmit the individual words
>and send the ranking syllable by some other means. Among the Bogomoli,
>these potential meanings are closely monitored, so that inauspicious
>can be avoided, or bon mots composed as a subtext to the main message.