On 7/31/23, Ada Wan <[email protected]> wrote:
> That having been expressed, here are a couple of points re RML that one
> should pay heed:
> i. to what extent and in what context is this a technology relevant?
If you were able to device an algorithm which taking as input only NL
texts (composed of: 1) a start (semantic end); b) a sequence of
characters from a relatively large and representative text bank; c) an
end (a semantic start)) is able to exhaustively "deduce" the grammar
of such texts, in addition to being able to use it with any language,
you would then:
1) have defined a "space"/"coordinate system" for those texts, to
frame (pretty much) all possible "meaningful 'points'"/"phrases" in
terms of such grammar, which would also;
2) be a 0-search structure describing the text bank/corpus (every
text segment would also become a pointer to every single actualization
of that very segment in all texts, no more "n-grams" necessary!),
which could;
3) be used with minimal turking/supervision to:
3.1) cleanse up all automatic translations from youtube;
3.2) keep multilingual corpora;
3.3) use it for automatic translations (demonstrably, in an almost
foolproof, perfect way, since you always have the words/phrases with
their context);
3.4) "cosmic/tree reading": instead reading books/sequences of
characters, you would read that text as it relates to all other texts
from the same topic;
3.5) parsing: you would keep a corpus of what you know so you wont
have to reread about certain topics and aspects you already know
(great Lord! how I hate reading a whole book to only find a few, at
times marginal, sentences worth reading! or that "youthful" thing of
thinking that they just discovered/created an idea because they are
just verbalizing it or made a movie about it!) BTW, regarding that
"parsing" aspect, what is the term used to describe the gradual
process of "terminological inception"? I have heard the term
"Adamization", but, even though that word doesn't really rub me the
wrong way, I could imagine it is "too sexist" to some people. I
wouldn't really care calling it Eveization or "pussyfication" or
whatever. I just don't want to use the term that the government uses:
"lexical priming" and "terminological inception" sounds too cumbersome
as a verb: "terminologically incept"? doesn't sound OK in English;
3.6) of course, an easy application of that contextual parsing would
be removing all that js crap and ads before they reach your awareness;
...
3.n) not last and definitely not least I am thinking hard about how
to make sure police and politicians at least have a hard time while
using what I have described to "freedom love" people (I know, I know,
... "3.n" doesn't "technically" pertain to quality of implementation
issues ..., but I, for one, disagree. Giving the "all tangible things"
(tm) panopticon in which we are all living these days, each of us in
one's own "virtual prison cell" to call it somehow, we should also
think about, be openly honest about such matters)
I am working right now on such Leibnizian "characteristica
universalis" kind of thing. First cleansing approx. 1.2 million texts
mostly from archive.org, *.pub and the NYS Regents exams
(nysedregents.org + nysl.ptfs.com) which they have, at least
partially, translated to more than 10 languages. Is that relevant
enough to you? ;-) I am also being quite selfish about it because I
have always dreamed of being able to "read"/mind all texts which have
ever been written in the same way that teens think they have to have
sex with everybody in town to make sense of things.
> ii. one can certainly dissect/decompose texts ...
Computing power has become insanely cheap, but it has also enabled
too much "cleverhansing" out there. The Delphic phrase: "you can make
sense or money" these times translates as some sort of corollary to:
"using computers and then thinking about it makes you smart"; but,
does it really?
It amazes me how easily you can "dissect"/"decompose texts", talk
about "tensors", "vectors", ... (I am not trying to police language
usage, it just amazes me); let alone all the insufferable bsing claims
by the "Artificial Intelligentsia".
I would go with one character after the other and an open attempt to
use the minimal amount of principles to then see what I get. IMO, when
you start getting too smart about what you do, of course, you will
"see" how smart you are. The poet in me likes Borges' stanzas: "... el
nombre es arquetipo de la cosa, en las letras de 'rosa' está la rosa y
todo el Nilo en la palabra 'Nilo'" ("its name is a thing's archetype,
in the letters of 'rose' is the rose and the whole of the Nile (river)
in the word 'Nile'")
> II. Re ""magical" in the sense that when we go about our intersubjective
> business": some intersubjectivity can be further clarified. I don't see much
> of your examples as being "magical".
I actually do! How could you clarified intersubjectivity? I am trying
to do so (somewhat) Mathematically (to the extent you could). Could
you share any papers, "prior art" on such matters?
> ii. "other people may read, mind, as well ...;": so?
which is a good thing it is alright, fine and dandy in the hippie way, I meant.
> iii. "Alice bought some veggies from Bob, ...)": this I don't understand.
> iv. "We see more in money ("words", ...) than just a piece of paper"
iii. and iv. overlap to some extent so I will try to explain them
both quickly (which is impossible since you can write philosophies
about each line, but there I'll go). To understand what Marx (may
have) meant by „gesellschaftlich notwendige Arbeit” ("socially
necessary labour time", wording which has made quite a few go berserk
ever since):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socially_necessary_labour_time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformation_problem
you have to understand the basic mathematical concepts of:
a) combined rates, and
b) intratextual systems of linear equations
Based on my teaching experience §b is easier to understand. Sorry I
couldn't find an "easier" explanation on youtube of that type of SLEs
than the one I used with my students preparing for the Regents:
https://ergosumus.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/sle04-en.pdf
the intratextuality of those problems matter to corpora research
because different strata of "like terms" ("verbs", "adjectives", ...)
is what creates grammar. "Crazy me" thinks you could to some extent
describe the "likeness of terms" underlying grammar!
~
I also have a guideline about combined rates which I successfully
used with my students:
https://ergosumus.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/word_problems12-en00.pdf
~
What the eff do combined rates and SLEs have to do with Marx'
transformation problem? ;-)
Well, notice that the -equitable aspect- used to solve combined rates
problems is the time (regardless of how differently fast one "works"
in comparison with others). There is also another type of combine rate
problems: you drive to some place with a friend who doesn't care about
driving fast, but you need to rest so she drives for a while ... that
problem is different from two people meeting at a place each driving
"on their own cars" (at their own average speed).
Serge Heiden shared a paper about presidential debates which could be
also Mathematically studied as a CR kind of problem (even if
politicians as the crowd management clowns they all are don't have to
make sense, anyway), but as it happens with any dialogue there are
parts of the conversations in which both the cars and the time is
shared and other times when only (or more of) the time. I don't know
of a general Mathematical formulation to CRs kinds of problems, which
could be used for corpora research. On my "to do" list I have writing
papers studying Euclid's Elements and Plato's Dialogues in that way.
Karl Marx's as part of his „Wertgesetz der Waren” (reChristened in
English as "labor theory of value") somewhat metaphorically stated
that the exchange value of a commodity is a function of "society's
labour-time". He also rendered his ideas as equations (in more of a
verbally descriptive, metaphorical way), but that phrase: "society's
labour-time", was and is still found from questionable to
unfalsifiably wild. I don't claim to have mind reading powers, but I
think in his letter to his friend Ludwig Kugelmann, the thoroughgoing
Hegelian Marx was, he clearly explained what he meant (page: 222 in
file, 208 in book):
https://archive.org/download/marxengelsselectedcorrespondence/Marx%20%26%20Engels%2C%20Selected%20Correspondence.pdf
Marx To Ludwig Kugelmann In Hanover London, July 11, 1868:
All that palaver about the necessity of proving the concept of value
comes from complete ignorance both of the subject dealt with and of
scientific method. Every child knows that a nation which ceased to
work, I will not say for a year, but even for a few weeks, would
perish. Every child knows, too, that the masses of products
corresponding to the different needs require different and
quantitatively determined masses of the total labour of society. That
this necessity of the distribution of social labour in definite
proportions cannot possibly be done away with by a particular form of
social production but can only change the mode of its appearance, is
self-evident. No natural laws can be done away with. What can change
in historically different circumstances is only the form in which
these laws assert themselves. And the form in which this proportional
distribution of labour asserts itself, in a state of society where the
interconnection of social labour is manifested in the private exchange
of the individual products of labour, is precisely the exchange value
of these products.
~
So, as I see it, in a Hegelian way, Marx was seeing the whole of
society as a corpus (in which we all live through our own
texts/narratives) talking about "socially necessary labour time" in
the way that "time" becomes the equitable aspect shared when
people/(-society as a whole-) work together as described by combined
rates kinds of problems.
When "Alice buys some veggies from Bob, ..." she used money as
"equitable aspect" to get Bob's veggies (in the Marxian way they were
both part of a combine rates problem) and you tell me this is not
magical!
> v. "some transactional electronic ("air"...) excitations": I don't get this.
you may pay with cash using coins or bills or using your debit card
which at the end of the day become transactional electronic
excitations on some hard drives. When you speak there is more to it
than vibrations/fluctuations of air. (I am referring to the medium
which Saussurean signifiers use)
> vi. "your 'magic' and mine are different we are still able to 'communicate'.
> How on earth do such things happen?": a disclaimer: I am not using any magic
> in my attempts to communicate with you here. I try my best to place myself in
> your shoes to guesstimate the points that you are trying to get across. But
> many (as you can see above) didn't quite reach me.
"I try my best to place myself in your shoes" ... ;-) Ha, ha, ha!
that is just a functional illusion. What do you know about "my shoes"?
I work as a gardener (which I love to do) so they are dirty and
smelly, ... I also love to eat garlic ... As I see things standing on
"my dirty and smelly shoes and voicing it from my garlicky mouth"
being honest and true to matters is good enough.
lbrtchx
_______________________________________________
Corpora mailing list -- [email protected]
https://list.elra.info/mailman3/postorius/lists/corpora.list.elra.info/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
