Re: Universal grammar

Rob Freeman wrote:
Tak To wrote:

groups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

[...]

But you are right. I think the issue is very closely related to that of
a general theorem prover in maths.

...
(I have probably missed it -- where did the OP said they were related?)


You didn't miss it. I was drawing the inference from the fact he needs
to find universals to implement his theorem prover.


Actually, I didn't think it wasstill considered possible to build
a general theorem prover in maths.

Correct.


(and I am personally convinced that is for the same reason we
have not been able to find universals of language or meaning.)

And the reason is?

Because I think there are many distributions which cannot be reduced to
logic, Tak.

I am not sure I understand what "distribution" and "reduced to
logic" means in the above statement.

In any case, I think "a universal representation of meaning"
exist, which is the collectively state of neurons in one's brain.
It is just that it is not that convenient to "use".

I don't see how this is related to Goedel's Theorem.

Tak
--
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To takto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr

.