From lojban+bncCP_9gZ7IFhCapYroBBoEDn_WPA@googlegroups.com Fri Dec 10 12:50:51 2010 Received: from mail-ww0-f61.google.com ([74.125.82.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PR9vS-0007NW-1O; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:50:51 -0800 Received: by wwb34 with SMTP id 34sf2957296wwb.16 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:50:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received:received-spf:received:from:reply-to:to:subject :date:user-agent:mime-version:message-id:x-spam_score :x-spam_score_int:x-spam_bar:x-spam_report:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=Bhsv4HxX8aRCBTRgSX6m6zmNLITmP5RCFa5Kpd6gQjE=; b=16Rw2GBJ8e/Ypa5KEfBMU6Og9sjH1ktzMH8u67QusJitwP3Tqz4Dfs9WoTo8Bno+hn TybdCaBcVdvFG9Q8t7jOJla6Kvj/B52epX6bYkMXsJxdBR+nDr/zXwrApIGKQC7YAKvB /qNVfzpUCgAeQ6ZjwCR2wxZbeCRVKfDUeJYo8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:from:reply-to:to:subject:date:user-agent :mime-version:message-id:x-spam_score:x-spam_score_int:x-spam_bar :x-spam_report:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=OXpFKkhPE6xiLksCSFxGnH6nbGxhcWiSzYdA7PDifXgFanad3emUEU14Xxa+CrlAFL 0b286oRZ/8gBjyTWKmDmoR++wCJFooVVn53rD7LA+0Dvfc6jOOCrLJhSHLUzkG2OpuuX UMfz/ROuij1GrcwynWLxdoID17PZlvb4BUoAM= Received: by 10.216.174.2 with SMTP id w2mr197482wel.10.1292014234621; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:50:34 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.227.184.76 with SMTP id cj12ls444135wbb.3.p; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:50:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.157.79 with SMTP id n57mr10163wek.0.1292014233658; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:50:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.181.202 with SMTP id l52mr46895wem.8.1291973082950; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 01:24:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.181.202 with SMTP id l52mr46894wem.8.1291973082930; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 01:24:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from narnia.blumen-schwarz.de (narnia.blumen-schwarz.de [80.190.195.21]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id t13si382682wbc.4.2010.12.10.01.24.42; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 01:24:42 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 80.190.195.21 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of roman_naumann@fastmail.fm) client-ip=80.190.195.21; Received: from brln-4dbc6344.pool.mediaways.net ([77.188.99.68] helo=kira.localnet) by narnia.blumen-schwarz.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PQzDT-0002ez-70 for lojban@googlegroups.com; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 10:24:42 +0100 From: Roman Naumann Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com To: Lojban List Subject: [lojban] Lojban CFG Questions Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 10:24:39 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.36-ARCH; KDE/4.5.4; x86_64; ; ) MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <201012101024.39320.roman_naumann@fastmail.fm> X-Spam_score: -1.0 X-Spam_score_int: -9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: Spam detection software, running on the system LifeNet Mailserver, has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see support@life.de for details. Content preview: Hello dear lojbanistanians, i'm starting with an attempt to find a CFG for lojban - or if it shows impossible, to prove it being impossible (so that you see what exactly is impossible and thus to improve). [...] Content analysis details: (-1.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is freemail (roman_naumann[at]fastmail.fm) X-Original-Sender: roman_naumann@fastmail.fm X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 80.190.195.21 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of roman_naumann@fastmail.fm) smtp.mail=roman_naumann@fastmail.fm Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hello dear lojbanistanians, i'm starting with an attempt to find a CFG for lojban - or if it shows impossible, to prove it being impossible (so that you see what exactly is impossible and thus to improve). Back in 2008 when there was a challenge [1] to do exactly that, i would have done it, but i lacked the knowledge to proof or proof-wrong grammars. Learned it during the last year at university and thought, hey, why not put it to use. However, i realized just now looking at the EBFN [2] causes eye cancer. Also, i've never been good with lojban at all. I don't get the (formalizing) problem with elidable terminators yet. To get started, it would be extremely helpful to work on an abstraction. I'd be glad if you could provide such to me. To give you an idea what kind of abstraction i have in mind, here's an example (though perhaps not very useful): We have five kinds (sub)sentences. They start and terminate with 'a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e'. Inside a (sub)sentence, only subsentences with a letter later in alphabet may stand. ("a c c a" is thus valid, "b a a b" is invalid [whitespace ignored], as a..a is no valid subsentence of b..b). Inside of sentences may (beside any number of subsentences) stand zero or more of numbers (which are our abstraction of words). Each number starts with zero and may not contain further zeros (this is to spare us the necessity for whitespace). Terminators [a-e] may be elided, if directly followed by another terminator. Thus, a implicitly terminates [b-e] subsentences, b implicitly terminates [c-e] subsentences and so on. A valid example 'word' of the language is: "a 01 02 c 0 e c 08 04 a" It should parse to: """ a(01 02 c(0 e())c 08 04)a """ (didn't want to draw a parse tree, but it this this is enough to get the point) So, do you think this abstraction catches the elidable terminator problem or is it too simple? If it's too simple, why, what's missing? Besides elidable terminators, are there other problems why you think lojban can't be expressed as a CFG (without the grammar being way too large)? Regards, Roman [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/lojban-beginners@lojban.org/msg04337.html [2] http://www.lojban.org/publications/formal-grammars/bnf.300.txt -- 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.