This is what Dr. Dick wrote:
"If you find problems with the differences I propose for the meanings of definition and assignment in the context of my work, we should discuss issues very carefully."
Yes, it has been one of my on-going contentions, in the face of my co-workers' denial of where I work, that careful discsussion is necessary about the issues of meanings and definitions ... not excluding *assignment* as an issue as well, of course.
In code-breaking, one of the most important levels of astbraction is the concept of permission to view previous attempts to break that code. Aha, you probably didn't intend to go there, did you? The definitions that mathematics and cultural idiom can be understood to have their assignment will nonteheless have meaning to someone unfamiliar with the idiom or math, if they can consult with someone. The universe itself is written in a code which to be break, will have meaning to whomsoever wrote it.
Which if the cultural idiom and the meaning which was assigned, if we can find someone to whom consult with who is not using a different idiom, from which the meaning is different. Example: If the Russell-Herzsprung sequence were not an idiom, it nonetheless could reveal something of it's writer, even if it is an idiom.
The math, more closely you watch it, becomes a code-breaker for who's telling the truth. The colors of stars, their plenitude, and which ones are where. So if someone gives you a read of the code which conflicts with that, it is wise to look up the astonomy of the stars first, and not believe 'til you know them or they make a star, whichever is first.