Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
I didn't see lojban mentioned. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban
On Apr 4, 2013 3:19 PM, Kirk Fraser overcomer@gmail.com wrote:
The main source of invention is not math wins as described on
http://www.vpri.org/html/work/ifnct.htm since the world would be speaking
math if it were really the source of inspiring more inventions that improve
the world's standard of living. Math helps add precision to tasks that
involve counting. Attempting to move from counting to logic such as in
statistics sometimes leads to false conclusions, especially if logic is not
given priority over the tools of math. For human value, readability is
required, so computer language improvements must focus on natural language.
Human language itself has problems seen in large projects such as Ubuntu
where contributors from around the world write in their own language and
tag their code with favorite names which mean nothing to the average reader
instead of words which best explain the application. Thus a major
improvement for world computing would be careful adherence to a world wide
natural language. We know cobbling together a variety of languages as in
Esperanto fails. While English is the world standard language for
business, Hebrew might be more inspiring. In any case the use of whole
words with common sense is more readable than acronyms.
The first math language Fortran was soon displaced in business by more
readable code afforded by Cobol's longer variable names. In Smalltalk one
can write unreadable math as easily as readable code but Smalltalk may have
a few legacy bugs which nobody has yet fixed, possibly due to having
metaphor or polymorphism design errors, where the code looks good to
multiple programmers but fails to perform as truly desired in all
circumstances. Further reluctance to use commonsense whole words on some
objects such as BltBlk present a barrier to learning directly from the
code.
One way to reduce these errors is to develop a set of executable rules
that produce Smalltalk, including checking method reuse implications. Then
one could make changes to a few rules and the rules would totally
reengineer Smalltalk accordingly, without forgetting or overlooking
anything that the programmer hasn't overlooked in the rules. There is also
room for a more efficient and more natural language. Smalltalk is
supposed to be 3 times faster to code than C and Expert systems are
supposed to be 10 times faster to code in than C. So a better language
needs development in two directions, easy to understand Expert rules using
common sense whole words and a built in library which enables Star Trek's
Computer or Iron Man's Computer level of hands free or at least keyboard
free function.
There are three basic statements in any computer language: assignment, If
then else, and loop. Beyond that a computer language should provide rapid
access to all common peripherals. Expert systems tend to have a built in
loop which executes everything until there are no more changes. Some
industrial process controllers put a strict time limit on the loop.
Examining published rules of simple expert systems, it appears that random
rule order makes them easier to create while brainstorming, it is possible
to organize rules in a sequential order which eliminates the repeat until
no changes loop. Rule ordering can be automated to retain freedom of human
input order.
Several years ago I worked with a Standford student to develop a language
we call Lt which introduces a concept of Object Strings which can make
rules a little easier. Unfortunately the project was written in VBasic
instead of Smalltalk so I've had insufficient ability to work on it since
the project ended. Soon I'll be working on converting it to Smalltalk then
reengineering it since it has a few design errors and needs a few more
development cycles educated by co-developing an NLP application.
Here's a simple Lt method which is very similar to Smalltalk
game
example Lt code
| bird player rock noise |
'objects
rock exists. player clumsy.
'facts
player trips : [player {clumsy unlucky}, rock exists].
'a if x w or x y and z
noise exists; is loud : (player trips, player noisy).
'a and b if x or y
bird frightened : noise is loud.
'a if x
(bird ~player has : bird frightened.
'case: if b then not a else a.
bird player has.).
^
'answer rock exists, player clumsy,
player trips, noise exists, noise is loud
'bird frightened
Now to complete the project without corporate resources, it is necessary
to select an NLP application which is both more powerful and physically
smaller than IBM's Watson which won against Jeopardy's best players. The
most powerful NLP text in history is the Bible which is only 4 Mb instead
of Watson's 4 Tb. Bible analysis can be very
Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
The first math language Fortran was soon displaced in business by more readable code afforded by Cobol's longer variable names. Fortran was displaced in business because early Fortran had no structures and random record-oriented file access, and because of some silly government requirements for computer system procurement. There are three basic statements in any computer language: assignment, If then else, and loop. ...except for those languages that have none of these three? I'd rather argue that all languages have 1) primitives, 2) means of composition, 3) means of abstraction. Some languages lack the third (Excel?) but these are not especially useful on large scale. Now to complete the project without corporate resources, it is necessary to select an NLP application which is both more powerful and physically smaller than IBM's Watson which won against Jeopardy's best players. The most powerful NLP text in history is the Bible which is only 4 Mb instead of Watson's 4 Tb. I have absolutely no idea what powerful is supposed to mean in this context, but I'd bet the Reuters corpora against the Bible any day of the week. Bible sounds like a horrible source material for any automated NLP endeavor, no matter whether research oriented or production-oriented, since it's on all levels (lexical, semantic, factual) schizophrenically disconnected from modern textual material. This level of NLP mastery in or external to an outside and indoor robot could be used to end poverty, illiteracy, crime, terrorism, and war around the world by growing and serving food, educating and entertaining a family with the same language and religion cradle to Ph.D what? O_o; - Gath ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:26 PM, John Carlson yottz...@gmail.com wrote: I didn't see lojban mentioned. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban Consider it equal to Esperanto in context of my argument. ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
Thus a major improvement for world computing would be careful adherence to
a world wide natural language
That seems to be contrary to how the world works. We can't even agree
whether to read bytes from right to left or left to right (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endianness).
http://xkcd.com/927/
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:26 PM, John Carlson yottz...@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't see lojban mentioned. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban
On Apr 4, 2013 3:19 PM, Kirk Fraser overcomer@gmail.com wrote:
The main source of invention is not math wins as described on
http://www.vpri.org/html/work/ifnct.htm since the world would be
speaking math if it were really the source of inspiring more inventions
that improve the world's standard of living. Math helps add precision to
tasks that involve counting. Attempting to move from counting to logic
such as in statistics sometimes leads to false conclusions, especially if
logic is not given priority over the tools of math. For human value,
readability is required, so computer language improvements must focus on
natural language.
Human language itself has problems seen in large projects such as Ubuntu
where contributors from around the world write in their own language and
tag their code with favorite names which mean nothing to the average reader
instead of words which best explain the application. Thus a major
improvement for world computing would be careful adherence to a world wide
natural language. We know cobbling together a variety of languages as in
Esperanto fails. While English is the world standard language for
business, Hebrew might be more inspiring. In any case the use of whole
words with common sense is more readable than acronyms.
The first math language Fortran was soon displaced in business by more
readable code afforded by Cobol's longer variable names. In Smalltalk one
can write unreadable math as easily as readable code but Smalltalk may have
a few legacy bugs which nobody has yet fixed, possibly due to having
metaphor or polymorphism design errors, where the code looks good to
multiple programmers but fails to perform as truly desired in all
circumstances. Further reluctance to use commonsense whole words on some
objects such as BltBlk present a barrier to learning directly from the
code.
One way to reduce these errors is to develop a set of executable rules
that produce Smalltalk, including checking method reuse implications. Then
one could make changes to a few rules and the rules would totally
reengineer Smalltalk accordingly, without forgetting or overlooking
anything that the programmer hasn't overlooked in the rules. There is also
room for a more efficient and more natural language. Smalltalk is
supposed to be 3 times faster to code than C and Expert systems are
supposed to be 10 times faster to code in than C. So a better language
needs development in two directions, easy to understand Expert rules using
common sense whole words and a built in library which enables Star Trek's
Computer or Iron Man's Computer level of hands free or at least keyboard
free function.
There are three basic statements in any computer language: assignment, If
then else, and loop. Beyond that a computer language should provide rapid
access to all common peripherals. Expert systems tend to have a built in
loop which executes everything until there are no more changes. Some
industrial process controllers put a strict time limit on the loop.
Examining published rules of simple expert systems, it appears that random
rule order makes them easier to create while brainstorming, it is possible
to organize rules in a sequential order which eliminates the repeat until
no changes loop. Rule ordering can be automated to retain freedom of human
input order.
Several years ago I worked with a Standford student to develop a language
we call Lt which introduces a concept of Object Strings which can make
rules a little easier. Unfortunately the project was written in VBasic
instead of Smalltalk so I've had insufficient ability to work on it since
the project ended. Soon I'll be working on converting it to Smalltalk then
reengineering it since it has a few design errors and needs a few more
development cycles educated by co-developing an NLP application.
Here's a simple Lt method which is very similar to Smalltalk
game
example Lt code
| bird player rock noise |
'objects
rock exists. player clumsy.
'facts
player trips : [player {clumsy unlucky}, rock exists].
'a if x w or x y and z
noise exists; is loud : (player trips, player noisy).
'a and b if x or y
bird frightened : noise is loud.
'a if x
(bird ~player has : bird frightened.
'case: if b then not a else a.
bird player has.).
^
'answer rock exists, player clumsy,
player trips, noise exists, noise is loud
Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Tristan Slominski tristan.slomin...@gmail.com wrote: Thus a major improvement for world computing would be careful adherence to a world wide natural language That seems to be contrary to how the world works. We can't even agree whether to read bytes from right to left or left to right ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endianness). http://xkcd.com/927/ It appears you are successfully working with English as do most people who communicate internationally. Not to say English best but it is what most people know and using it in programs would make them readable by more people until people adopt a purer language like Hebrew. -- Kirk W. Fraser http://freetom.info/TrueChurch - Replace the fraud churches with the true church. http://congressionalbiblestudy.org - Fix America by first fixing its Christian foundation. http://freetom.info - Example of False Justice common in America ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
Esperanto was intended to be a human understandable language. Lojban is intended to be a computer and human understandable language...huge difference. On Apr 4, 2013 3:39 PM, Kirk Fraser overcomer@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:26 PM, John Carlson yottz...@gmail.com wrote: I didn't see lojban mentioned. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban Consider it equal to Esperanto in context of my argument. ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
Actually zero difference in readability by me or anyone else who understands English but not Lojban or any trivial language. On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:47 PM, John Carlson yottz...@gmail.com wrote: Esperanto was intended to be a human understandable language. Lojban is intended to be a computer and human understandable language...huge difference. On Apr 4, 2013 3:39 PM, Kirk Fraser overcomer@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:26 PM, John Carlson yottz...@gmail.com wrote: I didn't see lojban mentioned. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban Consider it equal to Esperanto in context of my argument. ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc -- Kirk W. Fraser http://freetom.info/TrueChurch - Replace the fraud churches with the true church. http://congressionalbiblestudy.org - Fix America by first fixing its Christian foundation. http://freetom.info - Example of False Justice common in America ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
It appears you are successfully working with English as do most people [**citation needed**] who communicate internationally. Not to say English best but it is what most people know [**citation needed**] and using it in programs would make them readable by more people [**no evidence for this hypothesis**] until people adopt [**no evidence for this hypothesis**] a purer language [**citation needed**] like Hebrew [**citation needed**]. On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:47 PM, John Carlson yottz...@gmail.com wrote: Esperanto was intended to be a human understandable language. Lojban is intended to be a computer and human understandable language...huge difference. On Apr 4, 2013 3:39 PM, Kirk Fraser overcomer@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:26 PM, John Carlson yottz...@gmail.com wrote: I didn't see lojban mentioned. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban Consider it equal to Esperanto in context of my argument. ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
Natural languages include tenses. What computer systems have a wide variety of tenses? ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Gath-Gealaich gath.na.geala...@gmail.comwrote: The first math language Fortran was soon displaced in business by more readable code afforded by Cobol's longer variable names. Fortran was displaced in business because early Fortran had no structures and random record-oriented file access, and because of some silly government requirements for computer system procurement. Not according to management at Champion International. There are three basic statements in any computer language: assignment, If then else, and loop. ...except for those languages that have none of these three? I'd rather argue that all languages have 1) primitives, 2) means of composition, 3) means of abstraction. Some languages lack the third (Excel?) but these are not especially useful on large scale. I am guessing the three fundamentals educators agree to are implemented in obscure ways in the languages you are thinking of. For example in primitives or composition. Now to complete the project without corporate resources, it is necessary to select an NLP application which is both more powerful and physically smaller than IBM's Watson which won against Jeopardy's best players. The most powerful NLP text in history is the Bible which is only 4 Mb instead of Watson's 4 Tb. I have absolutely no idea what powerful is supposed to mean in this context, but I'd bet the Reuters corpora against the Bible any day of the week. Bible sounds like a horrible source material for any automated NLP endeavor, no matter whether research oriented or production-oriented, since it's on all levels (lexical, semantic, factual) schizophrenically disconnected from modern textual material. The Bible is the fundamental document of America's Founders, which made the most important and powerful nation in the world rise from 13 colonies. Thus you lost your bet. -- Kirk W. Fraser http://freetom.info/TrueChurch - Replace the fraud churches with the true church. http://congressionalbiblestudy.org - Fix America by first fixing its Christian foundation. http://freetom.info - Example of False Justice common in America ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
Liberal dictionaries have definitions that are by default wrong. For evidence of language decay, read definitions from the 1988 Webster's Collegiate vs. the current Webster's. Pure word and definition is needed to understand truth. People who love to lie get along without words meaning things. For example the current political fight on marriage demonstrates some people couldn't care less for truth, only for employer's spouse benefits to be shared with roommates. On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Gath-Gealaich gath.na.geala...@gmail.comwrote: Not to say English best but it is what most people know and using it in programs would make them readable by more people until people adopt a purer language like Hebrew. I'm not sure if you're joking or trolling, but Hebrew is hardly a purer language by any definition, as there is no such thing. This 19th century mindset died out a long time ago, along with the pretensions of contemporary linguists at demonstrating the purported language decay. We've come along way since then in our understanding of how languages evolve. -- Kirk W. Fraser http://freetom.info/TrueChurch - Replace the fraud churches with the true church. http://congressionalbiblestudy.org - Fix America by first fixing its Christian foundation. http://freetom.info - Example of False Justice common in America ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Kirk Fraser overcomer@gmail.comwrote: Liberal dictionaries have definitions that are by default wrong. There's no such thing as liberal dictionaries. For evidence of language decay, read definitions from the 1988 Webster's Collegiate vs. the current Webster's. Pure word and definition is needed to understand truth. There's no such thing as pure words. Language is a dynamic, evolving, feedback-driven entity that grows and adapts to new conditions, with meanings of words broadening (dog), narrowing (hound), shifting(computer) etc. People who love to lie get along without words meaning things. ...I won't comment on that nonsense. For example the current political fight on marriage demonstrates some people couldn't care less for truth, only for employer's spouse benefits to be shared with roommates. Political fight on marriage? I don't live in the US, so I have little understanding what you're talking about, but the word marriage seems to be applied in most cultures over the globe for some sort of binding social contract between individuals related to nurturing younglings for the next generation, yielding vastly different rights and obligations from such union across the different cultures. This makes the meaning of the word marriage highly contextual. (But I admit freely that my understanding of cultural anthropology is limited to having skimmed through the Encyclopedia of World Cultures. It was worth it, though - and quite fascinating at that.) - Gath ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
Am 04.04.13 22:53, schrieb John Carlson: Natural languages include tenses. What computer systems have a wide variety of tenses? John McCarthy analyzed this in his description of Elephant 2000 [1] sentence Algolic programs refer to the past via variables, arrays and other data structures. The maths vs natural language discussion boils down to the interpretation of meaning. In natural language the meaning of an expression is typically the intent of the sender to create the meaning in the world of the receiver. In How to do Things with Words J. L. Austin analyzed [2] that we use language to do things as well as to assert things. This interpretation of the meaning of language is called the theory of speech acts. Mathematics on the other hand is a formal language and every expression (should be) based on well defined definitions and proven theorems based on axioms, laws. Attention: I am not saying that one cannot express speech act models formally. One has to take the participating agent's knowledge, goals, and beliefs, into account With Elephant 2000 John envisioned to create a system that work based on speech acts[3]. He writes further The nature of the interaction arises from the fact that the different agents have different goals, knowledge and capabilities, and an agent's achieving its goals requires interaction with others. The nature of the required interactions determines the speech acts required. Many facts about what speech acts are required are independent of whether the agent is man or machine. Best, Jakob [1] - http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/elephant/node3.html#SECTION0003 [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Do_Things_with_Words [3] - http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/elephant/node2.html#SECTION0002 ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
