Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!iscuva!randyg
From: randyg@iscuva.ISCS.COM (Randy Gordon)
Newsgroups: sci.lang,comp.ai,comp.ai.neural-nets
Subject: Re: Infinite alphabets - (Turing via Berke)
Message-ID: <821@iscuva.ISCS.COM>
Date: Mon, 19-Oct-87 11:59:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: iscuva.821
Posted: Mon Oct 19 11:59:56 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 20-Oct-87 05:09:16 EDT
References: <154@Aragorn.UUCP> <114400001@exunido.UUCP>
Reply-To: randyg@iscuva.UUCP (Randy Gordon)
Distribution: na
Organization: ISC Systems Corporation, Spokane, WA
Lines: 19
Keywords: Formal games theory
Summary: Formal equivalence?
Xref: mnetor sci.lang:1591 comp.ai:928 comp.ai.neural-nets:18

In article <436@russell.STANFORD.EDU> nakashim@russell.UUCP (Hideyuki Nakashima) writes:
>.............  No Chinese equivalent of Europian "alphabet"s exist.
>
>
>-- 
>Hideyuki Nakashima
>CSLI and ETL
>nakashima@csli.stanford.edu (until Aug. 1988)
>nakashima%etl.jp@relay.cs.net (afterwards)

sigh, I am probably gonna get my head bit off, but....

I don't know much about Chinese writing, but in terms of formal game theory,
does it really make much of a difference to the equivalence of the languages
that chinese use simple tokens(well sorta) and europeans use complex tokens?
From what I can tell, there is nothing that is impossible to translate either
way(tho it may take a number of manipulations).

RANDY GORDON(TAO KUO TSE FUN PEE)