Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 173.13.139.236 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=173.13.139.236;
From: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Proof that Lojban morphology is unambiguous
To: Lojban List <lojban-list@lojban.org>
References: <86tuyhcx9s.fsf@cmarib.ramside> <865z9z7dyr.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
Message-ID: <66e54805-2c96-f078-a7b2-c1fdce8216a8@lojban.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 12:40:19 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <865z9z7dyr.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -
X-Original-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com;       spf=neutral
 (google.com: 173.13.139.236 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess
 record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) smtp.mailfrom=lojbab@lojban.org
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Spam-Checked-In-Group: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <https://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <https://groups.google.com/support/>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <https://groups.google.com/group/lojban
List-Subscribe: <https://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>,
 <https://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe>
X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--)
X-Spam_score: -2.7
X-Spam_score_int: -26
X-Spam_bar: --

On 8/3/2020 2:59 PM, 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.

It is not taboo, but there isn't a lot of interest in the issue, and I 
don't have time to do the digging you require, and I am not sure that 
there was even a final writeup.  Most of the people who were interested 
in the past are inactive at this point.

This was a question that largely was satisfied over 25 years ago.  We 
satisfied ourselves to a level that met our needs at the time, and no 
one has come up with counterexamples.  The few problem areas, if they 
can be called such, had to do with possible extensions to the language, 
none of which are even being used to my knowledge.

I do recall that at one time we attempted to write a software exhaustive 
test something like what was suggested by Mr Errington, but we decided 
that the number of possible cases was far too large and hence 
non-computable, given the PC hardware then available, and went to a more 
logico-analytical approach.  But any notes that I might have kept are 
rather deeply buried in my archived files.

lojbab


-- 
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/66e54805-2c96-f078-a7b2-c1fdce8216a8%40lojban.org.