I'm not sure how I contributed to your cliche attache, but I'm happy to help :) (The quotes imply it's reference to my words - but I wonder which ones?) > Are

I'm not sure how I contributed to your cliche attache, but I'm happy to help :) (The quotes imply it's reference to my words - but I wonder which ones?) > Are you saying that I am asking for a universal perfect compressor, In many ways, I think you are, of the Kolmogorov/Chaitin kind, if you are talking about language (which I thought you were). If you are talking about tooling, that would expand the same text at different level to different readers, then -- I didn't understand that, and that wasn't my response; I'll have to ponder that for a while before I respond. I do think that algorithmic complexity is the right context to consider notation, if that wasn't clear -- not in that we can (or should) distill knowledge to the smallest representation, but in the implications of what different "interpretation machines" (that is, persons reading ...) need in order to understand a notation.