Received: from mail-pb0-f61.google.com ([209.85.160.61]:46448)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCMGclZyxExDyi5z_BBoEbQBgDA@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1SilnU-00073r-Pu; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 05:20:21 -0700
Received: by pbbro2 with SMTP id ro2sf4676681pbb.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 05:20:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
         :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender
         :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list
         :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender
         :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type;
        bh=2BBuYumoBOMSQt0HvHzXswNuCMsG3KB6HnrFtIIZcho=;
        b=yIq45Nh2zXCyjeJq//EX5qQDvERzWQEGK4jooVAfDDn7yzrCAWYkmvXWwPuGOnOXed
         YIlN9YWVKE83+JDUM1kBA4ESclXaHmwCdIQiFx1dphl0JE3XJvoesOjr87yCuDquz5lc
         YsYKrili3XPJw8z7q+HkCK2ssL5syH0n3W2dQ=
Received: by 10.236.128.46 with SMTP id e34mr30777yhi.2.1340540402571;
        Sun, 24 Jun 2012 05:20:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.236.81.101 with SMTP id l65ls4663777yhe.5.gmail; Sun, 24 Jun
 2012 05:20:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.156.196 with SMTP id m44mr15837754yhk.9.1340540402040;
        Sun, 24 Jun 2012 05:20:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.156.196 with SMTP id m44mr15837753yhk.9.1340540402029;
        Sun, 24 Jun 2012 05:20:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f52.google.com (mail-yw0-f52.google.com [209.85.213.52])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a57si21421628yhh.5.2012.06.24.05.20.02
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sun, 24 Jun 2012 05:20:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of escaaape@gmail.com designates 209.85.213.52 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.52;
Received: by yhpp61 with SMTP id p61so2977499yhp.25
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 05:20:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.42.189.73 with SMTP id dd9mr3615794icb.49.1340540401870; Sun,
 24 Jun 2012 05:20:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.15.74 with HTTP; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 05:20:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAMKwHj183FZTuqyS8m_gHXfmfvQjSuv4u4wJiMBHjuHKOdUObw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGO2uOPcMjNogyRO8Wi-v+swm60xLR8X21=aykzmcMOh51e0-g@mail.gmail.com>
	<eddd7913-ac3b-4ec2-a72b-9f199852776b@googlegroups.com>
	<CAGO2uONMoF1BfuR+wJNn7y9ecjKg8PTeNHOp8J03JGAwmp5bnQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<74243394-F7AA-46CD-B731-21E95827CE6B@yahoo.com>
	<CAGO2uOMAatDoKcdk+1ti46mQ5fudXtPUTL3R1pHgUZ-LODrB6Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMKwHj1VjKh3wPefa3gqbQz39VDA=aFT1zgVT4s-8Lbz_z__eA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGO2uONCqnvYm89YOhuVPxydRfrZazJrwDDe3B6YcVuTjvvnXA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5fbb3fd1-8c00-42a4-9dac-e9889e69757f@googlegroups.com>
	<CAGO2uOO0aMRZCC_p4ijBtyJRnCbsuB45UNDvvDs_dTe=SxdTEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<000eea56-0a1e-4f54-8862-3cc817d539e1@googlegroups.com>
	<CAGO2uOPXNqkxWY3yDWEUWdDaTTGmjq_w=720JwHiVHswkaifnw@mail.gmail.com>
	<9cb9e4c0-f3fa-4183-8582-f14de670148c@googlegroups.com>
	<CAGO2uOPfj=uf4B1UcryaRuzmdnHsvuOZgs_BK5k=XnjK+HydyQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPAJj9KfOatTP8LyTcGZsCamCuWoduTwgLWmpqP9m5VnxYVbBg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGO2uOPVAeDeOdBZWnzb2Y07xmv=XuwYeAVwk5ZgPD3foMaSEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPAJj9KAU5w7VsUpt1mRkm+bA9kFLeBubjnF0BRTqtdHRSRpkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGO2uOPMOg6roW-ifgkOca=Zy4W84-eR_K-qQcT0s1xcB3ZgkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMKwHj183FZTuqyS8m_gHXfmfvQjSuv4u4wJiMBHjuHKOdUObw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 14:20:01 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGO2uOPGr8r5c1t=VNb3cT59DShVBh6MWgcrHrL_5pXRL5D_9A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Are Natlang the best case for entropy in
 communication ?
From: Escape Landsome <escaaape@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Original-Sender: escaaape@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 domain of escaaape@gmail.com designates 209.85.213.52 as permitted sender)
 smtp.mail=escaaape@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en_US>
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

> No evidence of any kind. It's beginning to sound like a mindless chant.
>
> As those in the scientific community are quite fond of saying, PROVE IT.


Entropy is defined as proportional to sum of p.ln p where p are the
probabities of the given choices.   That means if you begin by
admitting equiprobability for the sake of simplicity, the more choices
you have the more confusion you get.

A paradigm being a natural set of choices that arises in natural
context, it follows that the complexity of two different paradigms
cooccurring in the same utterance is less than one single paradigm
which has product cardinal of the two former paradigms, because the
context specifies clues that helps to desambiguate each of the two
former paradigms by the other, --- which cannot be done with one
single big paradigm.

This is well-known and widely acknowledge in Linguistics.

Thus, the example you give with
[paradigm A with 2 choices] with [paradigm B with 2 choices]
is much less likely to confuse than the one with
[paradigm C with 2x2 = 4 choices]

the negative difference is the amount of information given by the cross-context.

Thus, any natlang example of 4 choices given as Aa, Ab, Ba, Bb, will
be less harmful than the lojban example of so'V where you have Xa, Xe,
Xi, Xo.

This general reasoning must be amended by the fact that some paradigm
are much more used than others.   It is a reasonable argument that the
QUANTITY paradigm is much more useful than another very particular
paradigm, such as RACE OF HORSE, for instance.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.