I missed releasing another article on NŌNAE of this month, so I'll target ĪDŪS instead, unless I find a nice Roman date between now and then.
Maybe things are moving in the direction of only having neuter/not-neuter distinctions in gender though.
Parts of Latin are like this, particularly the third declension nouns and adjectives. Compare ĀTER, ĀTRA, and ĀTRUM with GRAVIS and GRAVE. My book waits until the ninth chapter before introducing these cruel words for which gender must be explicitly remembered, rather than derived from form.
There are also some missing pieces like the second person plural.
We know what I think of that.
I disagree.
I was trying to be positive, but the truth is I don't give a damn about the spirit that lives in the computer. The machine is a tool which has no sentimental value to me whatsoever. If my style successfully kills a spirit, somehow, then it means nothing to me. Let it be replaced by its better.
Were I to ask you to consider the conversion of integers into roman numerals' true form, I doubt you would think it in terms of your split and folded state-space.
That's my point. The machines shouldn't compute as we do. It's foolish to have the machine compute as a human would, when this be wholly unnecessary.
The state-spaces in Elision can't be fully structured meaningfully.
Only I've an accurate mental-model of what Elision will be and may be. I was recently reviewing some mathematics and realized the part of Elision that compresses the character tables may be partially related to what is known as super permutation. It's obvious how Latin declension and conjugation tables can be represented as tables, but the compositions of those tables can be represented as tables and so on and so forth.
The method is an elegant reflection of the problem, not ad hoc in the least.
I'll share something neat ahead of time. Consider the problem of searching from one point to another, forwards or backwards, for the first word beginning with some specified letters. My solution is as follows: Get the index of the first possible such word, and of the last possible such word; now the searching is a bounds check on each word, needing no more dictionary access. Searching the auxiliary dictionary would mean just an additional bounds check. Isn't this neat?
Tooling can assist perception, but not wholly knowing. Then again, memory is more capable than often acknowledged.
Yes.