[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Can Syntax become Semantic ?

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Christopher Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:59:41 -0600
Message-id: <EE5663A0-1AF1-4A58-BDC6-FDBD4E453DCC@xxxxxxxx>
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 
summarized.    (05)

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/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>