From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Wed Oct 22 19:01:54 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Wed, 22 Oct 2008 19:01:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KspWM-0000Us-C4 for llg-board@lojban.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 19:01:54 -0700 Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 19:01:54 -0700 From: Robin Lee Powell To: llg-board@lojban.org Subject: [llg-board] Re: A request to spend money. Message-ID: <20081023020154.GJ23512@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: llg-board@lojban.org References: <20081022214253.GD23512@digitalkingdom.org> <20081022223521.GB31254@mercury.ccil.org> <20081022225329.GG23512@digitalkingdom.org> <20081022232701.GH23512@digitalkingdom.org> <20081023011215.GI23512@digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-archive-position: 430 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-board@lojban.org X-list: llg-board I'm afraid I can't give you a short version of this; it takes 2-3 years of computer science and/or linguistics clasess to get all the necessary background, but you're welcome to start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_grammar If a properly formalized parser (camxes, for example) works properly, it should work prtty much exactly like jbofihe or the official parser; any diasgreement is a bug in one or more parsers. The advantage is that a formal parser will produce the same results no matter what language the code that implements it is, without having to compare the code to the CLL. If you point to C code and say "that's the grammar", then someone who wants a parser in (say) Lisp has a major task ahead of them. Turning a formal grammar into code is much, much easier than turning a grammer in one language into a grammar in aother. It is also possible to prove theorems about formal grammars. THere are other issues, as well, but again, it's a big topic. -Robin On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 09:21:45PM -0400, Matt Arnold wrote: > 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/ > > > > > > > > -- 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/