Re: Universal grammar
- From: LEE Sau Dan <danlee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 17:21:57 +0800
"Rob" == Rob Freeman <groups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Rob> LEE Sau Dan wrote:
>> >>>>> "Rob" == Rob Freeman <groups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
Rob> I think natural language (as a whole) is already
Rob> incompressible. That is what I mean when I say
Rob> "Incompressible strings can be our mathematical model for
Rob> human language." The mistake we have been making is trying to
Rob> compress them.
>> If there is no redandency in natrual lnaguages, then how come
>> we can do erorr-corrcetoin?
Rob> The robustness you demonstrate is inherent to any model based
Rob> on strings rather than logic, whether or not those strings
Rob> are incompressible.
[snipped]
Rob> We are not at odds really. This is what you are telling
Rob> me. Distributed representation is more robust than compressed
Rob> representation (rules.) This is all standard theory.
And why is that more robust? The key is: redundancy.
Rob> What imagining those strings are incompressible
Incompressible means no redundancy, because compression does its trick
by removing redundancy.
Rob> (taken over the whole language)
What does that mean? Can you state a more precise definition of that?
Rob> now brings us which is new, is the idea that any given
Rob> logical specification of language (grammar) is always
Rob> incomplete (because incompressible strings imply
Rob> incompleteness--Chaitin.)
Because we still haven't come up with a method to represent such
information completely and accurately.
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦 ~{@nJX6X~}
E-mail: danlee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Rob Freeman
- Re: Universal grammar
- References:
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Hans Aberg
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Rob Freeman
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Hans Aberg
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Rob Freeman
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Hans Aberg
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Rob Freeman
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Hans Aberg
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Rob Freeman
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Hans Aberg
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Rob Freeman
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: LEE Sau Dan
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Rob Freeman
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: LEE Sau Dan
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Rob Freeman
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: LEE Sau Dan
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Rob Freeman
- Re: Universal grammar
- Prev by Date: Re: Universal grammar
- Next by Date: Re: Lexical differences between Spanish and Portuguese
- Previous by thread: Re: Universal grammar
- Next by thread: Re: Universal grammar
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|