TL writes:
why does the number of "letters" (bases) invalidate the analogy?
Cuz I said so, and we all know that I am omnicient!
There are many coding systems with varying numbers of symbols. Computer machine language uses only two: 0 and 1. Yet, eventually, all computer programs -- no matter the logic, thought, complexity, intelligence, and meaning of the programs -- get reduced to series of 0s and 1s.
Yes, but things like chinese characters and roman letters can't be broken down to something universally basic.
I really dont see how the number of coding objects (symbols, electrical impulses/non-impulses, bases, etc.) in any particular coding system prevents comparison among coding systems.
There are subtle differences between coding systems that are ultimately based on some kind of a universal base code. In the case of computers, 0 and 1 are universal. In the case of DNA, GCAD are the basis.
But Chinese and the Romance languages do not share anything in common. They can't be broken down to something that both are based on.
This is why using differences in chinese and Latin and DNA is a false analogy.