3 ms·

That's a pretty atypical example, you've put the errors in exactly the right places. Imagine that string was r o *y or a y** *k** and you can se

That's a pretty atypical example, you've put the errors in exactly the right places. Imagine that string was *r* *o* ***y or a** y** *k** and you can see these are indecipherable and this is not a good example of "error correctable language". Error correction in language typically refers to understanding through context (i.e. other sentences), which would not be lost in this sort of compression.

willis936 7y ago
They aren’t indecipherable though. Context is inseparable from language. How many three letter words begin with “A”, followed by three letter words that begin with “y”, followed by four letter words that have a “k” in them? This is all well described in information theory and the redundancy of language is not invalid because I picked an obvious example.
- personjerry 7y ago
  There are many three letter words that begin with A, followed by 3 letter words that begin with Y, followed by 4 letter words with a K in them. Here are some examples. All you skim. And you skip. Ate yak skat. Add yak skin. If you're telling me I can randomly hide 2/3rds of characters in any English sentence and you can still derive the meaning, I'm going to need a citation beyond "information theory" in general. But this is tangential to the point. I'm saying the context is preserved with compression, hence the meaning is preserved. I'm saying we can compress the amount of letters used and still get the same meaning.
  - willis936 7y ago
    Elements of Information Theory (2e), Cover. Section 6.4. I also suggest following the authors suggested reading at the end of the section. Also there is a difference between having information and having perfect information. English can’t guarantee perfect information of arbitrary statements with 2/3 loss.
6502nerdface 7y ago
Y cn ndrstnd wrttn nglsh vn wtht n vwls!
- personjerry 7y ago
  Random errors would be unlikely to only remove vowels.
  - eigenloss 7y ago
    Still counts as error!

That's a pretty atypical example, you've put the errors in exactly the right places. Imagine that string was *r* *o* ***y or a** y** *k** and you can se

willis936 7y ago

They aren’t indecipherable though. Context is inseparable from language. How many three letter words begin with “A”, followed by three letter words that begin with “y”, followed by four letter words that have a “k” in them? This is all well described in information theory and the redundancy of language is not invalid because I picked an obvious example.

personjerry 7y ago
There are many three letter words that begin with A, followed by 3 letter words that begin with Y, followed by 4 letter words with a K in them. Here are some examples. All you skim. And you skip. Ate yak skat. Add yak skin. If you're telling me I can randomly hide 2/3rds of characters in any English sentence and you can still derive the meaning, I'm going to need a citation beyond "information theory" in general. But this is tangential to the point. I'm saying the context is preserved with compression, hence the meaning is preserved. I'm saying we can compress the amount of letters used and still get the same meaning.
- willis936 7y ago
  Elements of Information Theory (2e), Cover. Section 6.4. I also suggest following the authors suggested reading at the end of the section. Also there is a difference between having information and having perfect information. English can’t guarantee perfect information of arbitrary statements with 2/3 loss.

6502nerdface 7y ago

Y cn ndrstnd wrttn nglsh vn wtht n vwls!

personjerry 7y ago
Random errors would be unlikely to only remove vowels.
- eigenloss 7y ago
  Still counts as error!