From matt.mattarn@gmail.com Wed Oct 22 18:21:50 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:21:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.198.240]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KsotW-000644-Dv for llg-board@lojban.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:21:49 -0700 Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b17so84777rvf.46 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:21:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=i3rZuOSgNciBCxkC5kttUExtnY4O5kPFmxdiZt3H+Nw=; b=phs9KyH3b5VDfeUm910+tQFH/iOE/jj7vQr9m4yIw4r/hMrLXqsGUVvFxxNU1u/SGW YNG+d1yLW/wmvmgoaRGbcF3wNpHoDPna76oY+vq2jpHxBV2BseoGJVdEIbIzdh6nf9UX iR2NMDjPewj7mgfw0+/AbR1IFVd0JixWMPptA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=DZPnXZ8c7gZN0QcwD5mDVKFwgpNbnIfzGRGNpDCo2/ruNOZWteMzX97OuVNtUlXG3r vnCK3PpXREpK2+NB0/kAmYn1lfCGnhpd2TOymD7enfiFShreDErleeIEqWlHNt8pyhHw lQPo5JDP52v3K9B8//Qbz5k7eL25uM7Gpfj/I= Received: by 10.141.162.1 with SMTP id p1mr6660889rvo.271.1224724905339; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:21:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.141.20 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:21:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:21:45 -0400 From: "Matt Arnold" To: llg-board@lojban.org Subject: [llg-board] Re: A request to spend money. In-Reply-To: <20081023011215.GI23512@digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20081022214253.GD23512@digitalkingdom.org> <20081022223521.GB31254@mercury.ccil.org> <20081022225329.GG23512@digitalkingdom.org> <20081022232701.GH23512@digitalkingdom.org> <20081023011215.GI23512@digitalkingdom.org> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 429 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: matt.mattarn@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-board@lojban.org X-list: llg-board I don't understand that either. I thought code, by virtue of being code, has to be rigorously formalized in order for a computer to be able to understand the instructions. That can't be what you mean, so I'm confused. Would such a parser provide a more clear judgment on how to permissably speak Lojban where elidable terminators are concerned? Is that what you mean by "what both the official parser and jbofi'e do" not being "formalized"? -Matt On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 9:12 PM, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > Nothing. > > The difference is that large portions of what both tho official > parser and jbofi'e do isn't actually formalized; it's just a bunch > of code. I suspect that doesn't matter to you, but it definately > matters to some of us. > > -Robin > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 09:09:01PM -0400, Matt Arnold wrote: >> Explain "encode" to me in the context of this sentence. What would >> I experience that I am not experiencing with jbofi'e? >> >> -Matt >> >> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Robin Lee Powell >> wrote: >> > On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 03:53:29PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 06:35:21PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: >> >> > Robin Lee Powell scripsit: >> >> > >> >> > > 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. >> >> > >> >> > Hmm. I think this reduces to a proof about a grammar with >> >> > nothing but (, ), [, and ], where () can group either (...) or >> >> > [...], and [] can group either [...] or (...), and ] and ) are >> >> > elidable terminators. >> >> >> >> I'd even like to see that, but I was going to specify that there >> >> must be clear steps from there to generating a complete Lojban >> >> grammar, and the number of productions must not explode >> >> exponentially in doing so. >> > >> > Or even: $100 for a counter-proof, $300 for an example with several >> > (let's make it 5 rather than 2) elidable terminators and a >> > demonstration of how to non-explosively add new ones, $500 for a >> > full grammar in less than 2, 000 productions (the yacc grammar is >> > around 500). >> > >> > -Robin >> > >> > -- >> > They say: "The first AIs will be built by the military as weapons." >> > And I'm thinking: "Does it even occur to you to try for something >> > other than the default outcome?" -- http://shorl.com/tydruhedufogre >> > http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ >> > >> > >> > >> >> > > -- > They say: "The first AIs will be built by the military as weapons." > And I'm thinking: "Does it even occur to you to try for something > other than the default outcome?" -- http://shorl.com/tydruhedufogre > http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ > > >