From lojban+bncCIKmlYywDxCusJnpBBoELJSLHw@googlegroups.com Thu Jan 06 16:03:08 2011 Received: from mail-gy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.160.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PaznM-0000TJ-Lg; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 16:03:08 -0800 Received: by gyb11 with SMTP id 11sf15282878gyb.16 for ; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 16:02:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:mime-version :received:received:date:in-reply-to:x-ip:references:user-agent :x-http-useragent:message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help :list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Hb/HOawQC+/fgct1+5tDxtCbcZyqUqhCxqy07+H0EPc=; b=v4G6zLgDSK8jd8z4EiXGfkWGPWMjGkIVwn1RIdNFdN4GerQ93iqxx/PzJiRwUffAH1 QTGTYoY8diDzjEG+p8Lfi5jnn5zpRHmjrIErf8ML/MzHErUD3Y/xjxHYWUogE1BjSDL5 nwwVDiBwE74Okyibs3YfHwLSArMiH+m/FUV2g= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:mime-version:date:in-reply-to:x-ip:references :user-agent:x-http-useragent:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=59C+weyWQOkorE7XPH3FTcgD0nY3DMa8eNSF3684rK2HeldSHwIzdIlaJdLI4n1OWD diaKgnIicoFlnRHRKJrN3O+YCb+s7KF7uQkmPnZCRr5FZIfRGzjJkvvgRWzyg/WBRyHI ijsDddBC30EiYjzVsJ/Ndb1IdJi7CjH9MkOw0= Received: by 10.236.110.3 with SMTP id t3mr335410yhg.26.1294358574280; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 16:02:54 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.100.56.38 with SMTP id e38ls3434811ana.3.p; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 16:02:53 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.5.14 with SMTP id 14mr805270ane.1.1294358573678; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 16:02:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by g25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com with HTTP; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 16:02:53 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 16:02:53 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20110106223557.GJ27821@alice.local> X-IP: 128.177.28.49 References: <20110106204534.GF27821@alice.local> <200257.69484.qm@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20110106221107.GI27821@alice.local> <20110106223557.GJ27821@alice.local> User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:2.0b9pre) Gecko/20110105 Firefox/4.0b9pre,gzip(gfe) Message-ID: Subject: [lojban] Re: Semantic Representation of Lojban From: Jonathan Strickland To: lojban X-Original-Sender: djanatyn@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=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'd really be interesting in coming this year, if it was possible to grab plane tickets from somebody. With my current circumstances, I would have a higher chance of coming if jbonunsla was at a public convention, but I can see the benefits of having it in the home of a lojbanist as well. I attended jbonunsla last year in April, and while I very much enjoyed hanging out with other lojbanists, it wasn't as concentrated as it could have been. I think a lot of people enjoyed spending time going off and enjoying the other aspects of the convention (including myself), but having it in the home of lojbanist would probably make it more...lojban-ical. With that being said, *personally*, I would enjoy having it at a convention. We did some interesting lojbanic things last year, and I'm sure if we had it at a convention then the lojban games and fun would continue. But...that's just my personal opinion. I like conventions, anyway, and all-lojban all-the-time would be a tad too intensive for a beginner like me. On Jan 6, 5:35=A0pm, ".alyn.post." wrote: > I'd like to ellaborate a little more on this, because the link I > provided has a low information content. =A0I need to solve problems > like this: > > Nonviolent Communication[1] has a four-part communication model > called OFNR[2]. =A0In it, you state your observation, your feeling, > your need, and (optionally) a request. > > This turns out to be difficult, because we constantly mix > observations and feelings, state judgements as if they were > feelings, &c. =A0It is something that takes practice to do well. > > I want to be able to classify a Lojban statement based on a > constraint, like this: > > =A0 Does statement X consist of an observation, then a feeling, then > =A0 a need, and then optionally a request. > > The idea being that one can type in what *seems* like an OFNR > statement, and have the computer call you on it if it isn't. > > The above is actually quite complex, compared to the first version > of what I want to do, which is to have a conversation with ~20 valsi > and a finite state machine with something like that many states, and > use a simple version of the above classifier as to control state > transition. =A0The classifier won't need to handle anything outside > the scope of those ~20 valsi, save to transition to a "maybe you > ought to write that piece you clever monkey" state. > > I hope that demonstrates that I don't need a formal solution to the > problem, but that I need something *like* a solution to the problem, > and I hope that gives a better idea of the kind of thing I have in > mind, as I'm working on and interested in this topic. > > -Alan > > 1:http://www.cnvc.org/ > 2:http://en.nvcwiki.com/index.php/Four_part_model > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 03:11:07PM -0700, .alyn.post. wrote: > > By "playing with it," I mean specifically that I have an application > > in mind[1] and will be doing the minimum amount of work in this > > domain to support that application, with my goal being to develop > > and deliver the application, rather than a formal solution to this > > problem. > > > The initial version of the application requires only a pathetically > > bad approximation to this problem, and so I will be able to use the > > result in well under a few thousand man-hours. > > > -Alan > > > 1:http://wiki.call-cc.org/eggref/4/kiksispehi > > > On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 02:01:56PM -0800, John E Clifford wrote: > > > As a practical matter, the first (and officially easiest -- but time = will tell) > > > part would be to devise the rules for working back from Lojban surfac= e > > > structures to the underlying predicate logic ones: all logical connec= tives > > > between sentences, all quantifiers and negations in appropriate prene= x position > > > (so the structure that immediate follows -- a sentence of some sort -= - will be > > > exactly the intended scope). =A0You might also start a bunch of meani= ng > > > postulates, that relate one concept to others (I suppose, at least in= itially. > > > that the metalanguage will be English) and throw in the laws of logic= just in > > > case (but they are probably going to be needed early on anyhow, to so= rt out > > > issues in prenectification). =A0That ought to be worth a few thousand= man-hours. > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > > From: .alyn.post. > > > To: lojban@googlegroups.com > > > Sent: Thu, January 6, 2011 2:45:34 PM > > > Subject: [lojban] Semantic Representation of Lojban > > > > [I've moved this to it's own thread for higher visibility of the > > > topic.] > > > > On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 12:38:23PM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > > > Well, to a certain extent you're right, but if you choose the > > > > > right kind of semantic representation, you can do things like > > > > > proving that two different strings of Lojban have the same > > > > > meaning. Correct me if I'm wrong, but at the moment no machine > > > > > grammar of Lojban represents the fact that =93mi viska do=94 is > > > > > equivalent to =93do se viska mi=94. > > > > > Right, very true. =A0People have started playing with that. > > > > I've started playing with it, certainly. =A0Enough to where I'm > > > considering flying out to Penguicon to brainstorm and talk about > > > it with other Lojbanists. > > > > If others of you are working on it and are able and interested in > > > meeting about it, will you speak up? > > > > -Alan > > > -- > > > .i ko djuno fi le do sevzi > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gr= oups > > > "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=3Den. > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gr= oups "lojban" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@goog= legroups.com. > > > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/l= ojban?hl=3Den. > > > -- > > .i ko djuno fi le do sevzi > > -- > .i ko djuno fi le do sevzi --=20 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@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.