Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jake@mail.jerrington.me designates 2001:41d0:2:863f:: as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:41d0:2:863f::;
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2020 16:04:14 -0400
From: Jacob Thomas Errington <jake@mail.jerrington.me>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Proof that Lojban morphology is unambiguous
Message-ID: <20200803200414.76kso6gwhu2rnlig@renro>
References: <86tuyhcx9s.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
 <865z9z7dyr.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="bni3meuna3rwfzc2"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <865z9z7dyr.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -2.8
X-Spam_score_int: -27
X-Spam_bar: --


--bni3meuna3rwfzc2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Disposition: inline

I don't believe there is a proof out there, but it is by no means
taboo to question whether Lojban actually achieves its stated goals.

To prove that the morphology is unambiguous, one would have to write
an algorithm that accepts an idealized representation of a speech
stream and decomposes it into a sequence of words. The algorithm would
not be able to consult a dictionary to do so.

If you're interested in working on this, I'd be interested in hearing
about it.

mu'o mi'e la tsani

On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 06:59:24PM +0000, scope845hlang343jbo@icebubble.org wrote:
> scope845hlang343jbo@icebubble.org writes:
>
> > Does anybody have access to a proof, or know how to prove, that Lojban's
> > morphology is unambiguous?
> >
> > I was corresponding with lojbab, for a while, about this and he assured
> > me that the unambiguity of Lojban's morphology had been proven
> > analytically.  But when I asked him for his analytical methods/proof, he
> > stopped responding to me.  :(
> >
> > Does anybody know where this information can be found?  It would be much
> > appreciated.
>
> Is it taboo to question the non-ambiguity of the Lojban morphology?  I
> can't seem to get a straight answer from anyone about this.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lojban/865z9z7dyr.fsf%40cmarib.ramside.

--
Jacob Thomas Errington
W: https://jerrington.me/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lojban/20200803200414.76kso6gwhu2rnlig%40renro.

--bni3meuna3rwfzc2
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=DYiK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--bni3meuna3rwfzc2--