29-01-2025, 12:24 AM
(This post was last modified: 29-01-2025, 11:25 AM by Bluetoes101.)
It's an interesting question, and I don't know the answer, but I believe;
CLS
Conforming sequence = 4
Non-Conforming = 4
My stuff
Conforming sequence = 8
(EDIT: Actually this isn't right, I had only considered sequences which could be non-conforming but instead conformed. I'll figure out a proper list to publish with the completed thing once done)
Non-Conforming = 13
I'd have to read more about loop stuff. I have watched this a couple times if this is the same thing?
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(if it is) What I took from the talk was that each glyph has a % probability of going to the next, and with some cases this % probability causes a loop.
I think what I am showing is a bit different, the main difference is that it has no preference or perceived likelihood.
Lets say, I have a bunch of letters for whatever reason - l, k, i, r. Now, in accordance with the system they must be written like "olokair".. you could have also written "lokair", "alokair", ylokair.. so on and so on. Each iteration is pretty samey/uniform but you had choices within the system. It doesn't care what is usual, just conforming.
See, I'm hoping I missed the "After introducing the concept of ‘looping’ slot grammars" and that is why it sounds like Mauro is casting spells at me
. I may need to backtrack some to get a foothold into that, but I certainly will, just learning what an Nbit and LOOP-L (rappers?) is will help demystify things greatly.
CLS
Conforming sequence = 4
Non-Conforming = 4
My stuff
Conforming sequence = 8
(EDIT: Actually this isn't right, I had only considered sequences which could be non-conforming but instead conformed. I'll figure out a proper list to publish with the completed thing once done)
Non-Conforming = 13
I'd have to read more about loop stuff. I have watched this a couple times if this is the same thing?
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(if it is) What I took from the talk was that each glyph has a % probability of going to the next, and with some cases this % probability causes a loop.
I think what I am showing is a bit different, the main difference is that it has no preference or perceived likelihood.
Lets say, I have a bunch of letters for whatever reason - l, k, i, r. Now, in accordance with the system they must be written like "olokair".. you could have also written "lokair", "alokair", ylokair.. so on and so on. Each iteration is pretty samey/uniform but you had choices within the system. It doesn't care what is usual, just conforming.
See, I'm hoping I missed the "After introducing the concept of ‘looping’ slot grammars" and that is why it sounds like Mauro is casting spells at me
. I may need to backtrack some to get a foothold into that, but I certainly will, just learning what an Nbit and LOOP-L (rappers?) is will help demystify things greatly.