Received: from localhost ([::1]:42860 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TtnRh-0003Wj-Ip; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 14:51:29 -0800 Received: from mail-ea0-f177.google.com ([209.85.215.177]:59613) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TtnRZ-0003Wc-Pn for jbovlaste@lojban.org; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 14:51:27 -0800 Received: by mail-ea0-f177.google.com with SMTP id c10so890769eaa.8 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 14:51:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=qU72xKZ1S7TGoi4pmkxnzrd7s4cY5aBvNeMwR+j5nbQ=; b=QgdP2rRu3ozHfsApGDWhTKQ54MOa/MUEu5k04h5IZve0dnsSOw7nrUtOq0W1Mz6DbO 9k2GIMggWWL6k0GJ/a7AM1DwLwsYCjwhsQO9nIjYPXPBiRLx5ThUPJioFjuyh9MPOmqw scAo8kgWvXEfmtuPlk5NgKIpmay4S1H9o7NjShctJh6Ma/q9t7XMispmbvJvnci1aV2g KDaYFy98gGT3hYSriH+3o6Ij+rL9X4J9RkmpmntWoSwwtnu8028kbgJW2Q/nkCj12hGB MQS1zn7zlqauN3k0WyuM+Y2NC5vAfltC/7ptlU/W+95tRABN3iE5Ra/MIQ8vze8hWFd+ UI5w== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.14.202.3 with SMTP id c3mr205451852eeo.4.1357944654451; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 14:50:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.151.16 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 14:50:54 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1787963.147olisiCP@caracal> References: <1787963.147olisiCP@caracal> Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 17:50:54 -0500 Message-ID: From: Eitan Postavsky To: jbovlaste@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.2 X-Spam_score_int: 2 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Strictly speaking, the second place structure is for {selmifsle}, while the first is for {mifsle}. I don't think it would hurt for {mifsle} to have both meanings, do you? That said, it seems easy enough to coin both words: {mifsle} for block of a cipher, {selmifsle} for block of some plaintext. That's what I would do. [...] Content analysis details: (0.2 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (eitanp32[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in digit (eitanp32[at]gmail.com) 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature Subject: Re: [jbovlaste] mifsle X-BeenThere: jbovlaste@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: jbovlaste@lojban.org List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4006059866984783701==" Errors-To: jbovlaste-bounces@lojban.org --===============4006059866984783701== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b3436acc0d55e04d30b20a1 --047d7b3436acc0d55e04d30b20a1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Strictly speaking, the second place structure is for {selmifsle}, while the first is for {mifsle}. I don't think it would hurt for {mifsle} to have both meanings, do you? That said, it seems easy enough to coin both words: {mifsle} for block of a cipher, {selmifsle} for block of some plaintext. That's what I would do. I'm pretty sure that in the genetic code, the amino acid is the plaintext, because amino acids do all the useful protein magic while codons just sit there in an easy-to-manipulate format. On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Pierre Abbat wrote: > I proposed this word for "codon", but it could also mean "block of a > cipher". > Should the place structure be "x1 is the smallest ciphertext that can be > decrypted by x2" or "x1 is the smallest plaintext that can be encrypted by > x2"? In the genetic code, which is plaintext, the codon or the amino acid? > > Pierre > -- > The Black Garden on the Mountain is not on the Black Mountain. > > > _______________________________________________ > jbovlaste mailing list > jbovlaste@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/jbovlaste > --047d7b3436acc0d55e04d30b20a1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Strictly speaking, the second place structure is for {selmifsle}, while the= first is for {mifsle}. I don't think it would hurt for {mifsle} to hav= e both meanings, do you? That said, it seems easy enough to coin both words= : {mifsle} for block of a cipher, {selmifsle} for block of some plaintext. = That's what I would do.

I'm pretty sure that in the genetic code, the amino acid is the pla= intext, because amino acids do all the useful protein magic while codons ju= st sit there in an easy-to-manipulate format.

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Pierre Abbat <phma@bezitopo.org> wrote:
I proposed this word for "codon", but it could also mean "bl= ock of a cipher".
Should the place structure be "x1 is the smallest ciphertext that can = be
decrypted by x2" or "x1 is the smallest plaintext that can be enc= rypted by
x2"? In the genetic code, which is plaintext, the codon or the amino a= cid?

Pierre
--
The Black Garden on the Mountain is not on the Black Mountain.


_______________________________________________
jbovlaste mailing list
jbovlaste@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/jbovlaste

--047d7b3436acc0d55e04d30b20a1-- --===============4006059866984783701== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ jbovlaste mailing list jbovlaste@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/jbovlaste --===============4006059866984783701==--