From sentto-44114-17301-1038669839-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Sat Nov 30 07:24:47 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 30 Nov 2002 07:24:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from n21.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.77]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 18I9Ts-0004MU-01 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Sat, 30 Nov 2002 07:24:32 -0800 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-17301-1038669839-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.201] by n21.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 30 Nov 2002 15:24:00 -0000 X-Sender: nessus@free.fr X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 30 Nov 2002 15:23:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 64785 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2002 15:23:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Nov 2002 15:23:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mel-rto3.wanadoo.fr) (193.252.19.233) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Nov 2002 15:23:58 -0000 Received: from mel-rta9.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.69) by mel-rto3.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007) id 3DDA12BC0077A568; Sat, 30 Nov 2002 16:23:57 +0100 Received: from tanj (193.248.237.245) by mel-rta9.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007) id 3DD3EB7600899D5B; Sat, 30 Nov 2002 16:23:57 +0100 Message-ID: <003201c29884$804c8a40$f5edf8c1@tanj> To: , "Bob LeChevalier-Logical Language Group" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021130000456.03a3b4f0@pop.east.cox.net> X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 From: "Lionel Vidal" X-Yahoo-Profile: cmacinf 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 16:22:56 +0100 Subject: [lojban] Re: word resolution algorithm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 2788 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: nessus@free.fr Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list > 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. I did some work on that one year ago, though with slightly different objectives. My idea was to use BRKWORDS.TXT as a basis for an application project that would illustrate a teaching course in Haskell (and would also give me an oportunity to present lojban to some patient if not always receptive audience :-) The main point was to implement the described algorithm, that is essentially a backward parsing, in a single forward pass, using backtraking if needed: this was not meant to be more computationally efficient (although it could be, and deriving afterwards an efficient implementation from it might be another nice project :-), but was perceived as much more natural, in the sense that it is usually the method used by our personal carbon-based computers in our daily language based communication (or so it seems). Another point, which might be more interresting to you, is that, although Haskell per-se is not a tool for "proving" algorithms, the functional paradigms that it uses are well suited to write a weak formal description of an algorithm, that also *is* running code, and so you get a validity proof for free in a very practical sense. IMO, a nice thing to do, would be to write a specification paper in the spirit of M.P. Jones paper "Typing Haskell in Haskell", where he used some heavilly commented Haskell code to to provide a mathematically rigorous specification of the Haskell type system (which is, I think, more complex than lojban words-breaking system). You can download that paper from www.haskell.org to get an idea of what could be done. Some knowledge of Haskell is obviously required to fully understand it, but I think a patient lojban proficient reader could understand it very well if it has dealt with lojban rather than with Haskell typing system. Another language than Haskell could be used (ML, Scheme or even Prolog come to mind), but in my experience, Haskell is the most readable for people with no specific knowledge in algorithm formal specification. Although I am almost sure I lost the samples of code I wrote, I still have at hands my paper notes on the implementation. But I do not really volunteer for the job, unless you're not in a hurry. I am really very busy now (sadly to the point of stacking up most interresting messages of that list for later reading), and I can not commit myself on a delay, unless it is 3-4 months from now. (I do intend to write such a paper though). In any cases, someone may find nonetheless my idea useful. -- Lionel Vidal To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/