 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Languages Forum » All languages are equally fit... |
|
Page 58 of 83 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 57, 58, 59 ... 81, 82, 83 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Herman Rubin... |
 Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <871a229f-73b6-43e9-9c34-efebf33920f4 at (no spam) d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Peter T. Daniels <grammatim at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 7:13=A0pm, hru... at (no spam) odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
In article <1c95f087-8202-468b-852a-ad1019017... at (no spam) g27g2000yqn.googlegroups=
.com>,
Peter T. Daniels <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
On Nov 5, 8:31 am, LEE Sau Dan <dan... at (no spam) informatik.uni-freiburg.de
wrote:
That the *origin* of "=3DA4=3DE9" is =A0logographic, doesn't mean that=
it can't=3D
be
used as an ideograpm.
The _origin_ of that character is pictographic. It quickly became a
Chinese logogram. It was never an ideogram. (Maybe that will change if
any Chinese inscriptions earlier than the OBI are ever discovered,
which reveal the historical process that led to the fully developed
writing system seen in those earliest known texts.)
Just like that the inventor of dynamite didn't intend that it be used =
to
make weapons. =A0Does that make bombs not weapons?
(What does dynamite have to do with bombs?)
[/quote]
<> What weapon can be made using dynamite? =A0Only a bomb.
[quote]In cartoons and cheap TV shows, maybe. There are much better ways to
make bombs!
[/quote]
There are now, but in the time of Nobel, dynamite was very
much used for the purpose; the newer explosives came later.
My comment still holds; what other weapon is made using
dynamite?
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin at (no spam) stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Herman Rubin... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <0fa511bc-3456-4ceb-83a2-ba1b105abfe9 at (no spam) d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Peter T. Daniels <grammatim at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 11:15=A0pm, LEE Sau Dan <dan... at (no spam) informatik.uni-freiburg.de
wrote:
"Peter" =3D=3D Peter T Daniels <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> writes:
=A0 =A0 >>>> (What does dynamite have to do with bombs?)
=A0 =A0
=A0 =A0 >> What weapon can be made using dynamite? Only a bomb.
=A0 =A0 Peter> In cartoons and cheap TV shows, maybe. There are much bett=
er
=A0 =A0 Peter> ways to make bombs!
That doesn't refute the fact that they can be used to make bombs.
What does Alfred Nobel have to do with the question of whether bombs
are weapons?
[/quote]
The reason that Alfred Nobel set up the peace prise was BECAUSE
dynamite could be used as an instrument of warfare, and this was
to make bombs.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin at (no spam) stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nathan Sanders... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <hd1ql9$43o$00$1 at (no spam) news.t-online.com>,
Joachim Pense <snob at (no spam) pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
[quote]Nathan Sanders (in sci.lang):
In article <hd1lg4$scs$02$2 at (no spam) news.t-online.com>,
Joachim Pense <snob at (no spam) pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
Trond Engen (in sci.lang):
But I find it interesting that Joachim's examples seem to mean that we
as humans use (or may prefer using) our language capacity when
interpreting both mathematical formulae and programming language.
I very much feel that way.
That is indeed a crucial point. We use *OUR* language capacity to
interpret formal systems; we don't ordinarily use the defined
interpretation algorithms from within the formal systems themselves.
But I don't care about the formal systems but about the way humans use them.
[/quote]
Then we are talking past each other. I'm talking about the formal
systems as formal systems, not what happens when humans impose their
own linguistic interpretations from the outside onto those formal
systems.
English is English, regardless of how French speakers mangle its
interpretation. Likewise, mathematical notation is mathematical
notation, regardless of how humans mangle its interpretation.
[quote]I care about mathematical notation as mathematicians use it,
[/quote]
For the purposes of this discussion, I only care about how it's
actually defined formally, not how it gets misinterpreted from outside
the system.
Nathan
--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program
Williams College
http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Herman Rubin... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <nsanders-539697.12352206112009 at (no spam) adsl-99-136-209-74.dsl.tpkaks.sbcglobal.net>,
Nathan Sanders <nsanders at (no spam) williams.edu> wrote:
[quote]In article
nsanders-D78A00.12290406112009 at (no spam) adsl-99-136-209-74.dsl.tpkaks.sbcgloba
l.net>,
Nathan Sanders <nsanders at (no spam) williams.edu> wrote:
In article <hd1lg4$scs$02$2 at (no spam) news.t-online.com>,
Joachim Pense <snob at (no spam) pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
Trond Engen (in sci.lang):
But I find it interesting that Joachim's examples seem to mean that we
as humans use (or may prefer using) our language capacity when
interpreting both mathematical formulae and programming language.
I very much feel that way.
That is indeed a crucial point. We use *OUR* language capacity to
interpret formal systems; we don't ordinarily use the defined
interpretation algorithms from within the formal systems themselves.
In fact, this is precisely one of the biggest problems I face when I
teach logic. Students quite frequently ignore parts of the definition
of well-formed formulas, because as humans, they see no meaningful
difference between "(P & Q & R)" and "(P & Q) & R".
[/quote]
Here one can use the convention that, if an operator or
connective is associative, one can use the repetitions
without parentheses. Often one adds an operator or
convention to the language to be able to write it as
such without specifying the number of arguments. If it
is also commutative, one can even use an unordered set
of indices.
This can be considered an evolution of the languages of
logic and mathematics.
[quote]But there *is* a meaningful difference *within* the logical system
itself! Because "&" is strictly defined as a binary connective, the
first string is not well-formed and cannot be assigned an
interpretation, but the second string is fine.
Nathan
--[/quote]
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin at (no spam) stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Joachim Pense... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Nathan Sanders (in sci.lang):
[quote]In article <hd1lg4$scs$02$2 at (no spam) news.t-online.com>,
Joachim Pense <snob at (no spam) pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
Trond Engen (in sci.lang):
But I find it interesting that Joachim's examples seem to mean that we
as humans use (or may prefer using) our language capacity when
interpreting both mathematical formulae and programming language.
I very much feel that way.
That is indeed a crucial point. We use *OUR* language capacity to
interpret formal systems; we don't ordinarily use the defined
interpretation algorithms from within the formal systems themselves.
[/quote]
But I don't care about the formal systems but about the way humans use them.
I care about mathematical notation as mathematicians use it, and about
higher level programming languages. Why do you think higher level
programming languages exist? They have been invented because it is easier
to write complex programs in them than it is if you write machine code that
does the equivalent job. Some programming languages are flexible in the
code they accept precisely to allow for pragmatics in the code.
This is important, because the programs have to be written, read, and
maintained by people.
Joachim |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ramblin Bob... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
António Marques wrote:
[quote]
LSD knows a thing or two about maths, once saw a reverse-PN calculator,
and commands basic use of a thing called 'emacs'. From there he believes
himself in possession of life-changing knowledge everyone else is
ignorant of (he'd in all probability call DK ignorant on tex if he
didn't know it was DK speaking on the other side).
It all just gets supinely uninteresting after a while.
[/quote]
Are you trying to be the vice dictator for life? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nathan Sanders... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <hd1uuv$huu$02$1 at (no spam) news.t-online.com>,
Joachim Pense <snob at (no spam) pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
[quote]Nathan Sanders (in sci.lang):
English is English, regardless of how French speakers mangle its
interpretation. Likewise, mathematical notation is mathematical
notation, regardless of how humans mangle its interpretation.
No. You seem to consider mathematical notation as a prescriptivist considers
English.
[/quote]
Of course. Mathematical notation, unlike language, was consciously
and intentionally designed.
Both systems have governing rules, but for language, we don't know
what they are, so we can only describe the system through descriptive
observation.
In the case of mathematical notation however, we know the rules,
because we designed them! So of course it should be treated
prescriptively. Anything not within those rules is not a proper part
of the system, because we already have perfect knowledge of what that
system is.
[quote]I care about mathematical notation as mathematicians use it,
For the purposes of this discussion, I only care about how it's
actually defined formally, not how it gets misinterpreted from outside
the system.
Strange attitude for a linguist.
[/quote]
Hardly strange at all! Linguists don't describe English by how French
speakers interpret it.
Nathan
--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program
Williams College
http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nathan Sanders... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <hd1uuv$huu$02$1 at (no spam) news.t-online.com>,
Joachim Pense <snob at (no spam) pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
[quote]Nathan Sanders (in sci.lang):
But I don't care about the formal systems but about the way humans use
them.
Then we are talking past each other. I'm talking about the formal
systems as formal systems, not what happens when humans impose their
own linguistic interpretations from the outside onto those formal
systems.
I am not interested.
[/quote]
Then you are apparently not interested in talking about the actual
properties of formal notation systems themselves, but rather, how any
communication system can be perverted and twisted when subjected to
external influences. That is a completely different issue.
Nathan
--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program
Williams College
http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Joachim Pense... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Nathan Sanders (in sci.lang):
[quote]
But I don't care about the formal systems but about the way humans use
them.
Then we are talking past each other. I'm talking about the formal
systems as formal systems, not what happens when humans impose their
own linguistic interpretations from the outside onto those formal
systems.
[/quote]
I am not interested.
[quote]English is English, regardless of how French speakers mangle its
interpretation. Likewise, mathematical notation is mathematical
notation, regardless of how humans mangle its interpretation.
[/quote]
No. You seem to consider mathematical notation as a prescriptivist considers
English.
[quote]I care about mathematical notation as mathematicians use it,
For the purposes of this discussion, I only care about how it's
actually defined formally, not how it gets misinterpreted from outside
the system.
[/quote]
Strange attitude for a linguist.
Joachim |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| António Marques... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 9:19 pm, Joachim Pense <s... at (no spam) pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
[quote]António Marques (in sci.lang):
On 6 Nov, 18:44, Joachim Pense <s... at (no spam) pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
Why do you think higher level
programming languages exist? They have been invented because it is easier
to write complex programs in them than it is if you write machine code
that does the equivalent job. Some programming languages are flexible in
the code they accept precisely to allow for pragmatics in the code.
I must be missing something. What exactly (in programming languages)
are you talking about?
Pragmatics. I had given an example before.
[/quote]
Must have missed it. Be so kind as to elaborate, give another example,
etc. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| António Marques... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 7, 1:08 am, LEE Sau Dan <dan... at (no spam) informatik.uni-freiburg.de>
wrote:
[quote]"Nathan" == Nathan Sanders <nsand... at (no spam) williams.edu> writes:
>> There is an example where ambiguity is _not_ ungrammatical but by
>> design. In the database language SQL, you can write
>> select * from A where x > y
>> (Assuming that you have a table named A that has two number
>> columns x and y.) Now this will produce a list of all rows where
>> the x entry is bigger than the y entry, but the order in which
>> the rows appear is unpredictable. (The database system will use
>> table statistics, recent buffered query results and whatever to
>> decide which order it can produce in the shortest time).
Nathan> "And whatever"? Is it really undefined and random?
Yes. The spec. says clearly that the order of the results rows are in
an unspecified order. i.e. you as a programmer should not make any
assumption on the ordering of the resulting rows. An implementation is
allowed to use any order, and the order does not have to be consistent a
second time you use an identical query.
The order is arbitrary, unpredictable. Whether it is random is up to
the implementation. (Not that "random" is just one possibility to
realize "undefined", and it differs from "arbitrary".)
Is that hard to understand? Is that ambiguous?
[/quote]
Sorry, but where is the ambiguity? Of course the results of a SELECT
query are unordered, unless there is an ORDER BY clause. What's
ambiguous about that? Where does that enter the discussion? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nathan Sanders... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <hd22k3$8ga$03$1 at (no spam) news.t-online.com>,
Joachim Pense <snob at (no spam) pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
[quote]Nathan Sanders (in sci.lang):
In article <hd1uuv$huu$02$1 at (no spam) news.t-online.com>,
Joachim Pense <snob at (no spam) pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
Nathan Sanders (in sci.lang):
But I don't care about the formal systems but about the way humans use
them.
Then we are talking past each other. I'm talking about the formal
systems as formal systems, not what happens when humans impose their
own linguistic interpretations from the outside onto those formal
systems.
I am not interested.
Then you are apparently not interested in talking about the actual
properties of formal notation systems themselves, but rather, how any
communication system can be perverted and twisted when subjected to
external influences. That is a completely different issue.
I don't believe that the formal notation systems you are talking about
really exist except as idealisations.
[/quote]
Isn't that precisely what mathematical notation is for?
It'd be a shame if it couldn't do it's job!
Nathan
--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program
Williams College
http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nathan Sanders... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <hd2333$8ga$03$2 at (no spam) news.t-online.com>,
Joachim Pense <snob at (no spam) pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
[quote]Nathan Sanders (in sci.lang):
In article <hd1uuv$huu$02$1 at (no spam) news.t-online.com>,
Joachim Pense <snob at (no spam) pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
Nathan Sanders (in sci.lang):
English is English, regardless of how French speakers mangle its
interpretation. Likewise, mathematical notation is mathematical
notation, regardless of how humans mangle its interpretation.
No. You seem to consider mathematical notation as a prescriptivist
considers English.
Of course. Mathematical notation, unlike language, was consciously
and intentionally designed.
So you think that someone wrote a handbook of mathematical notation that
formally defines it and mathematicians are supposed to stick to those
rules. That somehow must have evaded my attention.
[/quote]
"A" handbook? No.
[quote]Both systems have governing rules, but for language, we don't know
what they are, so we can only describe the system through descriptive
observation.
In the case of mathematical notation however, we know the rules,
because we designed them!
But not in an organized plan, but as ad-hoc-addictions and changes piling
up, and governed by taste.
[/quote]
How does that contradict what I said? The rules were designed, we
know what they are, so it's reasonably to approach mathematical
notation from a prescriptive standpoint.
This is completely different from language, where we don't know the
rules, so a descriptive approach is the only way to figure out what
they are.
Nathan
--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program
Williams College
http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| António Marques... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 7, 1:08 am, LEE Sau Dan <dan... at (no spam) informatik.uni-freiburg.de>
wrote:
[quote] Nathan> Your SQL example only shows what happens when a human being
Nathan> doesn't know all the facts, so to naive humans (who are not
Nathan> truly part of the system of computer languages), the results
Nathan> do indeed seem unpredictable.
See above. The SQL example is deliberately written to allow
*unpredictable order*, so that RDBMS implementations may do any
optimizations that they see it fit.
[/quote]
??? The SQL example you tried to mystify NS with is not 'deliberately
written to allow' anything. SQL offers many options, and one of them
is to order results. IF no ordering is demanded, then no ordering is
done. No programmer expects any kind of ordering unless explicitly
demanded for the very simple reason that there is no 'default'
ordering to assume.
Likewise, among the various types of data structures representing
collections of elements, only a small part are expected to (and do)
exhibit ordering. Meaningful order is *not* part of their contract, so
where on earth do you get ambiguity?
(Well, maybe *you*'d like to rely on their order being meaningful, but
that's *your* misunderstanding.) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| DKleinecke... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 5:26 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc... at (no spam) csuohio.edu> wrote:
[quote]On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 09:08:58 +0800, LEE Sau Dan
But they mean the same thing.
Not precisely, no.
Brian
[/quote]
No two utterances mean exactly the same thing. The same utterance does
not mean exactly the same thing each time it is uttered. In fact, it
doesn't mean exactly the same thing each time it is read. There is a
little matter called context.
Context is inescapable and constantly changing. And each person who
encounters the utterance carries with them a lifetime of context (also
constantly changing).
The difficulty is the meaning of "exactly". We cannot live with too
much exactitude. We do live with "close enough". People who work
together develop an understanding of how close "close enough" is in
their community. Step outside your community though and you might make
mistakes.
For most of history the mathematical community has been small enough
that you could say they were all working together. Even so, for
example, the Italian geometricians of the late nineteenth century
worked with a notion of "proof" that was deviant enough to attract
attention. After the mid-twentieth century the mathematical community
grew so large that communication is getting difficult. And different
"close enoughs" are developing - please don't ask me for an example.
This started out as a discussion of whether or not ideograms exist
(although it didn't look like that was the subject). Mathematical
notation was advanced as an example (the unique example?) of
ideograms. Even the existence of ideas is suspect - is the operation
of adding an idea? Depends on one's deepest ontological beliefs. So
how could '=' be an ideogram if there is no idea to gram?
One can decide to become a philosopher and fixate on issues like
this. But most of us would like to spend our time on slightly more
practical issues. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:10 pm
|
|