Received: from mail-vw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.212.61])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <bpfk-list+bncCN673cmqFBCRh9LlBBoEhob0-g@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1P5h6s-00019X-BT; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 08:49:57 -0700
Received: by vws4 with SMTP id 4sf1686104vws.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 08:49:44 -0700 (PDT)
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:received:x-vr-score
         :x-authority-analysis:x-cm-score:message-id:date:from:user-agent
         :x-accept-language:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-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
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=+i14Xk+filtV3XseuEOZF7AEk6HFifNt+YQaS6WpGGU=;
        b=s/EGtE2YX8NR87i16CzeuPCZboLb0XhMJ8ngE3FCTpu70DGVqtoQHbn3jaIhH+4je+
         Uu1+TSiLHFtYFgX0Z5Ad9D7zGcqlo59Yk9YXwhoZcAJctD+IJ6bRKGr2Mb5Q4aeR3Ipl
         AbFgghMcDZHpWGcq09Jem1YOWJI3sRMX1gXiU=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-vr-score:x-authority-analysis:x-cm-score
         :message-id:date:from:user-agent:x-accept-language:mime-version:to
         :subject:references:in-reply-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:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=CX+gnv3pvPudm8gp0rSyKglNK2JyioxJIOIy5jIg+CvJEUYmUXtCBrJMt9Bemx9w2z
         PBSwLAQ1JlsOTn2pwN5pLet1tFEXLNNMKw6YP4aWs0XEX6jKWCckFbKKCCWErsBQ/lgt
         tT4F9VDqqPP6SuCQMnAtSz+wuNbZ0B9R7zIf0=
Received: by 10.220.178.8 with SMTP id bk8mr243108vcb.3.1286898577561;
        Tue, 12 Oct 2010 08:49:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.220.183.198 with SMTP id ch6ls4999vcb.2.p; Tue, 12 Oct 2010
 08:49:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.100.213.16 with SMTP id l16mr3030665ang.13.1286898576763;
        Tue, 12 Oct 2010 08:49:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.100.213.16 with SMTP id l16mr3030664ang.13.1286898576748;
        Tue, 12 Oct 2010 08:49:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eastrmmtao105.cox.net (eastrmmtao105.cox.net [68.230.240.47])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id q5si5702433anf.9.2010.10.12.08.49.36;
        Tue, 12 Oct 2010 08:49:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.240.47 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.240.47;
Received: from eastrmimpo03.cox.net ([68.1.16.126])
          by eastrmmtao105.cox.net
          (InterMail vM.8.00.01.00 201-2244-105-20090324) with ESMTP
          id <20101012154935.QWAU14030.eastrmmtao105.cox.net@eastrmimpo03.cox.net>
          for <bpfk-list@googlegroups.com>; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 11:49:35 -0400
Received: from [192.168.0.100] ([70.179.118.163])
	by eastrmimpo03.cox.net with bizsmtp
	id Hrpb1f00N3Xcbvq02rpbX8; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 11:49:36 -0400
X-VR-Score: -100.00
X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=z6CBhH0tHruS0FbwYG+vLjSarkX/HqbUMpkqCCzoucY=
 c=1 sm=1 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=7ls7RdmwX4RvLZNVULbZcg==:17 a=8YJikuA2AAAA:8
 a=cykXEABh8MK6wsymcS4A:9 a=-6Bxiqy3m_ZO_Upoy6OqJ8w00ogA:4 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10
 a=dxBpO5_FDU0A:10 a=7ls7RdmwX4RvLZNVULbZcg==:117
X-CM-Score: 0.00
Message-ID: <4CB483A6.7000100@lojban.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 11:49:58 -0400
From: Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [bpfk] BPFK work
References: <AANLkTi=2R1tYqwGzuL1oLN448q-aB3BHEcB4Z9h+5FBs@mail.gmail.com>	<AANLkTikROXvZ0J_KtzpkqxjMhXYVGY2WkBoWbidHJUoG@mail.gmail.com>	<4CB0B239.50107@lojban.org>	<AANLkTimzz=Exgf-94tnkebibZs8ZhtmO_Z9meeorSLKj@mail.gmail.com>	<4CB1F3EA.5000608@lojban.org>	<AANLkTi=-z=KfdA3EQYF-g2Ab9v=PXCHZGr0g=17RBF3j@mail.gmail.com>	<4CB20ADF.6050500@lojban.org>	<AANLkTikJQAkx145XeQBC=f5KBq0wyLz_yd4wgkCH8Bbk@mail.gmail.com>	<AANLkTinFLROKSf7WLn3r82hHVLGUjTUx6VLG=MereADY@mail.gmail.com>	<AANLkTimU6eie6HXqfVYWCKEYxBEn=uvyRk+oRbsCSyGv@mail.gmail.com>	<AANLkTi=5rsT0HCwd+aO+Pyt-2r6Q06jxss0zk2e+B+LE@mail.gmail.com>	<AANLkTimVM9COtdvBy6oH66imQOmMWXbumv3GQjYw8JhG@mail.gmail.com>	<4CB2335F.7000606@lojban.org>	<AANLkTi=eC0yrzcPj8DLqRVK+dnzQgt+-diwO0aM7rrj-@mail.gmail.com>	<4CB253D0.1020806@lojban.org>	<AANLkTikDa_qf9vK0wEeu-LsGmby0dVg5Mc7aAsMOPCEy@mail.gmail.com>	<4CB3493A.7010406@lojban.org> <AANLkTinF1Kuvpe2O_Cuy7iCGtTGBYGVLc4q7ViE-kBWM@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinF1Kuvpe2O_Cuy7iCGtTGBYGVLc4q7ViE-kBWM@mail.gmail.com>
X-Original-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com:
 68.230.240.47 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain
 of lojbab@lojban.org) smtp.mail=lojbab@lojban.org
Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <bpfk-list.googlegroups.com>
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:bpfk-list@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:bpfk-list+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list?hl=en_US>
Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:bpfk-list+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list/subscribe?hl=en_US>,
 <mailto:bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Length: 3620

Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> w=
rote:
>=20
>>3. The formalization of the machine grammar has not to my knowledge ever
>>been fully implemented,
>=20
> It has for several years now. It hasn't yet been made official, but it
> has been formalized, the whole thing, from the morphology up,
> including all the tricky magic words.

Where is the parser that handles all the tricky magic words and all the=20
morphological analysis?

I *said* that the formalization had never been fully implemented.

As far as I am concerned, a formalization which is not implemented has=20
not been, and cannot be, properly tested to see if the formalization is=20
"correct".

> There are some issues still to decide, but not because they haven't
> been formalized, only because we have to make choices as to which
> formal version of a rule is preferrable.

If we haven't decided, then there is no complete formalization, much=20
less an implementation of the formalization.

>>and the fact that we are having this discussion
>>indicates that the concept of "text" was never formally defined in terms
>>necessary to account for multiple speakers.
>=20
> That's a pragmatic matter, external to the formal grammar, right.

That depends on whether we formalize pragmatics.

>> By the formal language, no fa'o: no end of text.
>=20
> That's not quite right.
>=20
>  In PEG, FAhO is optional, otherwise the end of input is enough to
> signal the end of text.

How does the computer know "end of input"?  "fa'o" is the equivalent of=20
whatever signal the computer uses to detect that state.

> In BNF the rule for FAhO is only given informally, it is not a part of
> the formalization:
> "FAhO is a universal terminator and signals the end of parsable input."

Then the BNF is not a complete formal grammar.

>>By the formal grammar, if there is no fa'o, there is no new text. Indeed,=
 by
>>the formal grammar, there is no concept of more than one text and after a
>>fa'o, everything else until the end of time is non-Lojban. %^)
>=20
> That's absurd. By the formal grammar, each input that parses correctly
> is a valid Lojban text. There's no reason to think that only one valid
> Lojban text exists in all the universe.

There is no reason NOT to think so.  In a formalism, only that which has=20
been formalized exists.

>>>Why? Why wouldn't the computer just parse each speaker's text on its
>>>own?
>>
>>The computer doesn't know what a "speaker" is.
>=20
> Computers nowadays are pretty good at voice recognition.

If the formal grammar specifies the decisions of a particular voice=20
recognition program as constituting the definitions of multiple texts,=20
then that will be relevant.

If there is no specified formal rule, then it doesn't exist as part of=20
the formal system.

>> It knows what a text-stream
>>is, and that such a text-stream ends with a fa'o and only with a fa'o.
>=20
> You can program a computer to recognize different speakers and feed
> the contribution from each speaker to the parser as a separate input.
> That of course has nothing to do with the formal grammar.

That programming would in fact become part of the formal grammar.

> Absurd.

No.  Just the limitations of formal systems.

lojbab


--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
BPFK" group.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googleg=
roups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-l=
ist?hl=3Den.