| |
BGonline.org Forums
Assumption in Nactation
Posted By: Matt Ryder In Response To: Assumption in Nactation (Nack Ballard)
Date: Thursday, 6 January 2011, at 6:06 a.m.
Consider 64S-44 played 24/16* 13/9(2). For a computer, I should use B, which is strictly correct. For a human audience, I would likely apply the hit assumption and use D (or 9) for the play.
Are you proposing that transcribers select whether their intended audience is wholly silicon- or carbon-based before choosing an appropriate glyph??
I cannot see the point of devising elaborate parallel nactation rules solely for computers. The point of storing nactative symbols in a computer is ultimately so that they may be communicated back to human beings! If my program decodes 24/16* 13/9(2) as B, then that's what it will store and display. There's no rosetta stone to translate the B into a D (or 9) if that's what most humans will understand.
For my own part, I think the cognitive dissonance of trying to figure out whether a transcriber was using an "assumption" or a "strictly correct" rule (or some combination of same) will slow down most human beings rather than speed them up. Why not just teach the "strictly correct" method and everyone will be on the same page, man and machine alike?
(Assumptive shortcuts make sense if a transcriber is recording solely for his own purposes; then he can use whatever doodles, scratchings or systems make most sense to him personally.)
Matt
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.