From sentto-44114-17300-1038664205-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Sat Nov 30 05:50:43 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 30 Nov 2002 05:50:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from n9.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.93]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 18I80z-0001t7-00 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Sat, 30 Nov 2002 05:50:37 -0800 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-17300-1038664205-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.201] by n9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 30 Nov 2002 13:50:05 -0000 X-Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 30 Nov 2002 13:50:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 13594 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2002 13:50:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Nov 2002 13:50:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO neofelis.ixazon.lan) (208.150.110.21) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Nov 2002 13:50:04 -0000 Received: by neofelis.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 500) id 263F43C5FB; Sat, 30 Nov 2002 08:50:02 -0500 (EST) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021130000456.03a3b4f0@pop.east.cox.net> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021130000456.03a3b4f0@pop.east.cox.net> X-Spamtrap: fesmri@ixazon.dynip.com Message-Id: <0211300849590U.02982@neofelis> From: Pierre Abbat MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 08:49:59 -0500 Subject: [lojban] Re: word resolution algorithm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 2787 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: phma@webjockey.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Saturday 30 November 2002 00:14, Bob LeChevalier-Logical Language Group wrote: > Buried in my discussion with Pierre, I recalled that the word resolution > algorithm was not proven in time to be included in CLL, though it was > intended to be part of the baseline language definition. At the time, I > said we could just add it into the dictionary, but the new policy does not > specifically allow for that (though the byfy could probably include > it). Updating and proving the word resolution algorithm would be a good > project for one person with the sort of mathematical-proof-of-algorithm > experience needed, and could be done independently, and a working algorithm > could simply byfy deliberations over what could amount to a raft of > corrections and change proposals in the orthography/morphology sections of > the refgrammar, which has numerous sloppy wordings. By proving it, do you mean proving that all valid phoneme strings are broken into words correctly, or also proving that all invalid phoneme strings are rejected? I'll code this up. phma To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/