From arj@nvg.ntnu.no Wed Oct 22 14:58:53 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:58:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no ([129.241.210.67]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Kslj8-00047v-Gg for llg-board@lojban.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:58:53 -0700 Received: from hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no (hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no [129.241.210.68]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FDBD94786 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:58:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no (8.13.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id m9MLwDT1028713 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:58:13 +0200 Received: (from arj@localhost) by hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no (8.13.8/8.13.1/Submit) id m9MLwCTU028712 for llg-board@lojban.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:58:12 +0200 Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:58:12 +0200 From: Arnt Richard Johansen To: llg-board@lojban.org Subject: [llg-board] Re: A request to spend money. Message-ID: <20081022215812.GF2447@nvg.org> References: <20081022214253.GD23512@digitalkingdom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081022214253.GD23512@digitalkingdom.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-NVG-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-NVG-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: arj@nvg.ntnu.no X-Spam-Score: -0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 420 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: arj@nvg.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-board@lojban.org X-list: llg-board On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 02:42:53PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > I would like to offer $500 to anyone that comes up with a CFG that > can encode Lojban elidable terminators (I strongly believe this to > be impossible) or $100 for a formal proof that it's impossible. > This would be out of the LLG moneys. > > The formal proof would actually be more work, I expect, but that's > (1) not the result I want and (2) the more likely result, so I'd > like us to pay less for it. > > This is a motion. May I have a second? Good idea, but in the case of a formal proof, who would evaluate the proof's correctness? -- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ A wrong note played timidly is a wrong note. A wrong note played with authority is an interpretation.