On Jan 22, 2010, at 3:45 AM, Rob Freeman wrote:
> ...It's common these days to blame a lack of general knowledge
> ("background") for our inability to program computers to understand
> natural language.
> I'm convinced much of the problem is that there is a wealth of detail
> in syntactic structure which we simply throw away.
> This is related to my point that there are many computational
> processes which cannot be completely summarized. (01)
You've not made a point you've only asserted a sentence with no clear meaning.
If you would: (02)
(a) Define what you mean by a computational process. (The usual definition in
the context of theoretical computer science is a run of a Turing machine on a
given input.) (03)
(b) Define what it means to "summarize" a computational process; and (04)
(c) Provide an example of a computational process that cannot be completely
Then I (and I suspect others) will be able to see the point of your assertion. (06)
Chris Menzel (07)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (08)