Received: from mail-pz0-f61.google.com ([209.85.210.61]:46449)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCMGclZyxExClwJz_BBoEePAnGQ@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1SinXf-0000DB-Kq; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 07:12:01 -0700
Received: by daek18 with SMTP id k18sf3730666dae.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 07:11:49 -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=h/vBidnGs3eX1iASbKpP8nNLqJPlwK1uhk/9jehcnsw=;
        b=mf12LaGVW+uQoQR4aqVyz4dWuiLTAMVGZRurJ+EBRXl1Cgk1Acuct6yasfxxZKjuFK
         XBeU4oHi+I54RTlkUDq7qURsZ56hoFwNw9UMDEL4Lu2i4MOIAjWEmrDD20dbLudVcHaM
         NPHgurMTtKrmb6IhqE9/5unzg6wQFHstO3oIE=
Received: by 10.50.202.38 with SMTP id kf6mr81356igc.0.1340547109591;
        Sun, 24 Jun 2012 07:11:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.231.8.197 with SMTP id i5ls2895223ibi.9.gmail; Sun, 24 Jun
 2012 07:11:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.195.199 with SMTP id ig7mr6050695igc.3.1340547108969;
        Sun, 24 Jun 2012 07:11:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.195.199 with SMTP id ig7mr6050693igc.3.1340547108960;
        Sun, 24 Jun 2012 07:11:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id bg10si1945662igc.3.2012.06.24.07.11.48
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sun, 24 Jun 2012 07:11:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of escaaape@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.172 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.172;
Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so6971097obb.17
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 07:11:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.187.169 with SMTP id ft9mr5943639igc.16.1340547108556; Sun,
 24 Jun 2012 07:11:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.15.74 with HTTP; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 07:11:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAMKwHj3ynW-yEMJFaqnw0JXd6+5a+hM1vAogg_CoU078oPToyQ@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>
	<CAGO2uOPGr8r5c1t=VNb3cT59DShVBh6MWgcrHrL_5pXRL5D_9A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMKwHj1=dRGjW6J8zQLG1Rgt2XwZ7sQx8eV5g6n3X1gJLx9HnQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGO2uOOwti2kUiL9aCX8tNn6Zr3v=nAw05zM6utLn20oWHg7Tw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMKwHj3ynW-yEMJFaqnw0JXd6+5a+hM1vAogg_CoU078oPToyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 16:11:48 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGO2uOM=s_W32Np-NYW7WSGawR96K5JXVCqgeK5hbu2QNzB9Nw@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 209.85.214.172 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. No more argument. If you do not provide /evidence/, you will /never/
> convince me.


I just noticed that 10 minutes ago I've written this :

> Considering that nobody has metrics for Lojban or for the general case
> of paradigms in totally any language, you won't have more than
> qualitative argument based on mathematical properties of complexity
> measures and generic minorations/majorations of allowed values.

> Thus, the genetic argument is roughly the one given here --->
> http://bluemoon.lescigales.org/Kholok/CollectiveDesambiguation.html

Now, << the genetic argument >> was mistyped !  I meant << the geneRic
argument >>.

But everybody here understood me well.   Why ?  Because either the
difference between both words "genetic" and "generic" is slight in
context, or you had correctly CORRECTED me.

That is to say, the choice between X = { generic, genetic } has low
entropy in THIS utterance.

We could study other examples where a single mistyping of a single
letter would happen.

For instance in French : << et alors elle a ouvert la mouche pour
parler >> is correctly understood as << la bouche >> instead of << la
mouche >>.   Still the set X of all possible choices is big : X = {
bouche, couche, douche, louche, mouche, souche, touche }

But the context prevents other Xouche words than body organs to be
selected, so the entropy is very low in context.

-

Now consider a lojban sentence where somebody would talk of a number
of people in a room, he would use so'V but would mistype the V letter.

The X set has 5 elements but none of them can be best selected given
the context.

Hence we conclude the entropy would be high in context.

-

If we consider all these examples, we see the last example entropy is
high because of the gathering of VERY OFTEN-USED FEATURES in a VERY
NARROW SET of VERY SIMILAR FORMS, which is not the case of the former
examples, since for those the paradigms are not natural.

Hence you see the lojban case has very high entropy while the two
natlang examples have not.   If this is not so, GIVE ME A NATLANG
EXAMPLE WITH NATURAL PARADIGM AND 5 ALTERNATIVES OR MORE, given the
same condition of mistyping of A SINGLE LETTER.

The difference of greatness in entropy in lojban and natlang examples
is so flagrant you don't even need to measure it, as if we were
speaking of the size of an elephant compared to the size of a mouse.

-- 
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.