Well, Con(PA) is a "natural" statement I'd say, and ZFC proves Con(PA).

If the sentence is garbled/muffled, which I will poorly attempt to represent in text by

l__'s g_ for _ wa__

a human is likely to still understand it. A dog would not (I assume, I am no dog researcher). So, a human's understanding of the "correct" ungarbled sounds is not the same as a dogs, otherswise the dog would understand the garbled sounds.

10 bits means 2^(10) = 1024 different things can be encoded.

Uhhh... ok dude. I really doubt anyone "has to" learn this, as long as they learn to hear pitch accent I'm sure anyone can pick it up "naturally". I spend my time learning this sort of stuff because it's cool and interesting.

I think he titled it 7 because he explicitly presents 7 different cases. I'm not sure what you mean by saying three are the same though? Two are obviously exactly the same. Personally, I would only consider it three different "things":

• A uvular nasal at the end of an utterance.
• The nasalization of a following consonant when that consonant has the tongue contacting the roof of the mouth.
• The nasalization of a preceeding vowel when the following phoneme has the tongue not making contact.

I think it's fair to even say that it's almost exactly one thing: an instruction to let air out of your nose whilst producing the surrounding phonemes.

https://elv.sh