From lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRCwz4roBBoErie81A@googlegroups.com Fri Dec 10 14:20:48 2010 Received: from mail-ww0-f61.google.com ([74.125.82.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PRBKV-0002Mj-QA; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:20:48 -0800 Received: by wwb34 with SMTP id 34sf3040119wwb.16 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:20:37 -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-spf:received:mime-version:received:received :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=XufYbsI5MiDr/qjNap0sdYTo7hBvY/zpKVbn3Lqw7JA=; b=Nh7fWnzYxMsw0rQW7E8SCGoB5OdRgdLx27LZYXge5szH4R2PUx0FaSWaKF9f8p3gLk e0RP+ANfk9cvSK6YF9oo3kbwTOi8/d38DPnrRRRvNLd9YhwET8wzOOFgec2dDLN0AAzL /VLgfk7ZzSqfhyyZ+aiSEQherdhiblwOQWRNE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=LpAVPoE63XRZ7ugE7n052otaaDubBW2sVBsVfdB8EQWUts48apd8VYwXdEkHzQ8onX ZYGqEmbXFNGTjx8D46L3grt6SoGRXqxB7Ypx+6zQsi+13hbf3E385gM88JaTp3/zDKWG c3ohE+RKpuuEvehZMlGYruzZNTuCvJ18IX2ZA= Received: by 10.216.24.207 with SMTP id x57mr222wex.15.1292019632918; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:20:32 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.208.4 with SMTP id p4ls1440241weo.2.p; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:20:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.179.75 with SMTP id g53mr116551wem.1.1292019630506; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:20:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.179.75 with SMTP id g53mr116550wem.1.1292019630459; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:20:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wy0-f180.google.com (mail-wy0-f180.google.com [74.125.82.180]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id p4si260344weq.4.2010.12.10.14.20.29; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:20:29 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.180 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.180; Received: by mail-wy0-f180.google.com with SMTP id 28so4543419wyb.11 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:20:29 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.199.81 with SMTP id w59mr163473wen.100.1292019629323; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:20:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.227.54.72 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:20:29 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <201012101024.39320.roman_naumann@fastmail.fm> References: <201012101024.39320.roman_naumann@fastmail.fm> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 19:20:29 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Lojban CFG Questions From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.180 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com 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 On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Roman Naumann wrote: > > 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). That makes it very different from Lojban. In Lojban pretty much any terminated structure can be found inside of any other, and that's basically what the "terminator problem" amounts to. > 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)? I think ZOI is the only thing that makes Lojban non-CFG. Elidable terminators just make for a hugely impractical CFG. Here is an example of how to handle elidable terminators in a small subset of Lojban: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/browse_thread/thread/90911b0611bb5a5e/555dbaf7addd93e6 The same principle could be extended to all terminators, but the size of the grammar would explode. mu'o mi'e xorxes -- 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.