aionys is pointing out that even though, mathematically, you can find
a difference in ambiguity, this doesn't (necessarily) mean anything in
practice. There are a whole host of things that can go wrong between
the model and the real world (the model may imperfectly model the real
world, the model may perfectly model something that is not the real
world, etc.)
Also, taking for a given that lojban has more potential ambiguity due
to ambient noise or mishearing, that doesn't mean that _communication_
in lojban is any more difficult than in other languages; discourse
might structure itself so that this is not an issue.
Even taking for granted that communication in lojban is more difficult
than in other languages, you have failed to answer the question that
other people have posed: "so what?"
Do you propose a change to lojban? It's not going to happen, as it
will have to be so pervasive as to invalidate all the lojban we
already know.
Do you propose a new language? Design it yourself and come back to us;
we may not learn it, but we'll appreciate your work (and point out
flaws in it that you hadn't thought of).
Do you propose we just give up on lojban? You're posting this to the
lojban mailing list; you can imagine the outcome yourself.
One of the strengths of lojban, entirely apart from its design, is
common to most successful open source projects; we are willing and
able to avoid yak shaving and bike shedding, and even though we
sometimes enjoy a jbodau here and there, we can completely ignore
proposals without feeling bad. there are simply too many changes to
consider, and stability is more important.
--
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Escape Landsome <escaaape@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Also "scientificity" isn't a word.
>
> It is in my natlang, but sorry this does not exist in English.
>
>
>
> Come, what you want is the prove that S(Example 2) much bigger than
> mean value of S(Example 1s) for all Example 1s we can imagine.
>
> I reply with a minoration. A minoration IS A MATHEMATICAL proof.
> If I was asked by you if an elephant is bigger than a mouse, even
> without precisely measuring both animals, I could reason like that :
>
> Size(Elephant) much bigger than 1 meter
>
> Size(Mouse), smaller then 0.30 meter
>
> => thus Size(Elephant) much bigger than Size(Mouse)
>
>
> This is the same here, simply you don't perceive how much bigger is
> S(E2) relatively to all S(E1).
>
>
> But, anyway, well, I surrender. There must be somewhere studies
> recording estimates of S(E1s) for a lot of E1 situations where one
> letter is mistyped.
>
> And I bet mean value of S(E1s) is between 1 and 1.58, which is the
> most natural estimate tells us that in natural context there are in
> the worst cases 2 ou 3 possibilities.
>
> You see, I make this a prediction that can be falsified, in a
> popperish way of science. This is what I bet.
>
> And this is still less than 2.3 which is THE PROVED VALUE of S(E2).
>
> --
> 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.
>
mu'o mi'e .arpis.
--
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.