Patrick, (01)
Natural languages are much richer and more flexible than
any version of logic or any programming language. (02)
PD> Hmmm, but that seems to presume that the limitations
> of symbolic logic or a programming language are the gage
> for expression with precision. (03)
Those are languages designed for using very inflexible
computers to solve problems that require precision -- e.g.,
banking, accounts receivable, or storage and transmission
of data without losing or altering a single bit. (04)
PD> Is it your contention that "everything" stated in a more
> expressive language can be captured in a less expressive one? (05)
Absolutely not. (06)
PD> Granted that a lot of progress has been made in processing
> less expressive languages but is that any reason to move the
> goal posts as it were to declare victory because by redefining
> the problem a solution can be produced? (07)
People have been applying computers to natural language processing
since the early 1950s, and they're still discovering more research
problems than useful results. Many linguists still have a strong
interest in working on such problems. Unfortunately, the people
with money have lost interest in paying them. (08)
John (09)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (010)
|