> I don't think the proofs depend on any special assumptions about the
> nature of learning.
I beg to differ. IIRC the sense of "learning" they require is induction
over example sentences. They exclude the use of real world knowledge,
in spite of the fact that such knowledge (or at least <primitives
involved in the development of real world knowledge>) are posited to
play a significant role in the learning of grammar in humans. As such,
these proofs say nothing whatsoever about the learning of NL grammars.
I agree they do have other limitations, of the sort you suggest below.
Ah, I see.... Yes, it is true that these theorems are about grammar
learning in isolation, not taking into account interactions btw
semantics, pragmatics and grammar, for example...
ben
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
