--- On Thu, 10/23/08, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi. I don't understand the following
> statements. Could you explain it some more?
>
>> - Natural language can be learned from examples. Formal language
>> can not.
I really mean that formal languages like C++ and HTML are not des
inal Message -
> *From:* Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> *To:* agi@v2.listbox.com
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 22, 2008 9:23 PM
> *Subject:* Lojban (was Re: [agi] constructivist issues)
>
> Why would anyone use a simplified or formalized English (with regular
> grammar a
ednesday, October 22, 2008 9:23 PM
Subject: Lojban (was Re: [agi] constructivist issues)
Why would anyone use a simplified or formalized English (with regular
grammar and no ambiguities) as a path to natural language understanding? Formal
language processing has nothing to do w
Lojban is a unique case as it has the flexibility to be a formal language, a
language as ambiguous as English or more so, and to exist at any level
inbetween as well... one could use it in exploratory AI work in a variety of
ways...
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:36 PM, Trent Waddington <
[EMAIL PROTE
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So how does yet another formal language processing system help us understand
> natural language? This route has been a dead end for 50 years, in spite of
> the ability to always make some initial progress before getting stu
[Usual disclaimer: this is not the approach I'm taking, but I don't find it
stupid]
The idea is that by teaching an AI in a minimally-ambiguous language, one
can build up its commonsense understanding such that it can then deal with
the ambiguities of natural language better, using this understand
Why would anyone use a simplified or formalized English (with regular grammar
and no ambiguities) as a path to natural language understanding? Formal
language processing has nothing to do with natural language processing other
than sharing a common lexicon that make them appear superficially sim
