Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
Am 04.04.13 22:53, schrieb John Carlson: > > Natural languages include tenses. What computer systems have a wide > variety of tenses? > John McCarthy analyzed this in his description of Elephant 2000 [1] sentence "Algolic programs refer to the past via variables, arrays and other data structures." The maths vs natural language discussion boils down to the interpretation of meaning. In natural language the meaning of an expression is typically the intent of the sender to create the meaning in the world of the receiver. In How to do Things with Words J. L. Austin analyzed [2] that we use language to do things as well as to assert things. This interpretation of the meaning of language is called the theory of speech acts. Mathematics on the other hand is a formal language and every expression (should be) based on well defined definitions and proven theorems based on axioms, laws. Attention: I am not saying that one cannot express speech act models formally. One has to take the participating agent's knowledge, goals, and beliefs, into account With Elephant 2000 John envisioned to create a system that work based on speech acts[3]. He writes further " The nature of the interaction arises from the fact that the different agents have different goals, knowledge and capabilities, and an agent's achieving its goals requires interaction with others. The nature of the required interactions determines the speech acts required. Many facts about what speech acts are required are independent of whether the agent is man or machine." Best, Jakob [1] - http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/elephant/node3.html#SECTION0003 [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Do_Things_with_Words [3] - http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/elephant/node2.html#SECTION0002 > ___ > fonc mailing list > fonc@vpri.org > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Kirk Fraser wrote:
> Liberal dictionaries have definitions that are by default wrong.
There's no such thing as "liberal dictionaries".
> For evidence of language decay, read definitions from the 1988
> Webster's Collegiate vs. the current Webster's. Pure word and definition
> is needed to understand truth.
There's no such thing as "pure words". Language is a dynamic, evolving,
feedback-driven entity that grows and adapts to new conditions, with
meanings of words broadening ("dog"), narrowing ("hound"),
shifting("computer") etc.
> People who love to lie get along without words meaning things.
...I won't comment on that nonsense.
> For example the current political fight on "marriage" demonstrates some
> people couldn't care less for truth, only for employer's spouse benefits to
> be shared with roommates.
"Political fight on marriage"? I don't live in the US, so I have little
understanding what you're talking about, but the word "marriage" seems to
be applied in most cultures over the globe for some sort of binding social
contract between individuals related to nurturing younglings for the next
generation, yielding vastly different rights and obligations from such
union across the different cultures. This makes the meaning of the word
"marriage" highly contextual. (But I admit freely that my understanding of
cultural anthropology is limited to having skimmed through the Encyclopedia
of World Cultures. It was worth it, though - and quite fascinating at that.)
- Gath
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Kirk Fraser wrote: > > Fortran was displaced in business because early Fortran had no structures >> and random record-oriented file access, and because of some silly >> government requirements for computer system procurement. >> > > Not according to management at Champion International. > I have no idea what "Champion International" is and why I should care, but I *do* know that the US DoD made an early requirement for all computer system providers in defense contracts to provide all computer systems with COBOL, and that was it. I am guessing the three fundamentals educators agree to are implemented in > obscure ways in the languages you are thinking of. For example in > primitives or composition. > My three fundamentals come specifically from Sussman and Abelson. If Sussman and Abelson don't qualify as educators, then I don't know who else does. Note that I'm ignoring all the crappy "educators" who actually display a severe syndrome of tunnel vision in their textbooks, such as those that I was forced to endure in my youth before I found *actual* quality education materials such as SICP, EOPL, TAPL, ItoA etc. "The Bible is the fundamental document of America's Founders" > "Book X is a fundamental document of person Y" is a meaningless syntactic structure, unless you actually want to claim that there is Ben Franklin's biography stashed somewhere in the Books of Kings. > "which made the most important and powerful nation in the world rise from > 13 colonies. Thus you lost your bet." > I bow to your awesome powers of non sequitur. - Gath ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
Liberal dictionaries have definitions that are by default wrong. For evidence of language decay, read definitions from the 1988 Webster's Collegiate vs. the current Webster's. Pure word and definition is needed to understand truth. People who love to lie get along without words meaning things. For example the current political fight on "marriage" demonstrates some people couldn't care less for truth, only for employer's spouse benefits to be shared with roommates. On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Gath-Gealaich wrote: > "Not to say English best but it is what most people know and using it in > programs would make them readable by more people until people adopt a purer > language like Hebrew." > > I'm not sure if you're joking or trolling, but Hebrew is hardly a "purer > language" by any definition, as there is no such thing. This 19th century > mindset died out a long time ago, along with the pretensions of > contemporary "linguists" at demonstrating the purported "language decay". > We've come along way since then in our understanding of how languages > evolve. > > -- Kirk W. Fraser http://freetom.info/TrueChurch - Replace the fraud churches with the true church. http://congressionalbiblestudy.org - Fix America by first fixing its Christian foundation. http://freetom.info - Example of False Justice common in America ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Gath-Gealaich wrote: > "The first math language Fortran was soon displaced in business by more > readable code afforded by Cobol's longer variable names." > > Fortran was displaced in business because early Fortran had no structures > and random record-oriented file access, and because of some silly > government requirements for computer system procurement. > Not according to management at Champion International. > "There are three basic statements in any computer language: assignment, If > then else, and loop." > > ...except for those languages that have none of these three? I'd rather > argue that all languages have > > 1) primitives, > 2) means of composition, > 3) means of abstraction. > > Some languages lack the third (Excel?) but these are not especially useful > on large scale. > I am guessing the three fundamentals educators agree to are implemented in obscure ways in the languages you are thinking of. For example in primitives or composition. "Now to complete the project without corporate resources, it is necessary > to select an NLP application which is both more powerful and physically > smaller than IBM's Watson which won against Jeopardy's best players. The > most powerful NLP text in history is the Bible which is only 4 Mb instead > of Watson's 4 Tb." > > I have absolutely no idea what "powerful" is supposed to mean in this > context, but I'd bet the Reuters corpora against the Bible any day of the > week. Bible sounds like a horrible source material for any automated NLP > endeavor, no matter whether research oriented or production-oriented, since > it's on all levels (lexical, semantic, factual) schizophrenically > disconnected from modern textual material. > The Bible is the fundamental document of America's Founders, which made the most important and powerful nation in the world rise from 13 colonies. Thus you lost your bet. -- Kirk W. Fraser http://freetom.info/TrueChurch - Replace the fraud churches with the true church. http://congressionalbiblestudy.org - Fix America by first fixing its Christian foundation. http://freetom.info - Example of False Justice common in America ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
Natural languages include tenses. What computer systems have a wide variety of tenses? ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
"Not to say English best but it is what most people know and using it in programs would make them readable by more people until people adopt a purer language like Hebrew." I'm not sure if you're joking or trolling, but Hebrew is hardly a "purer language" by any definition, as there is no such thing. This 19th century mindset died out a long time ago, along with the pretensions of contemporary "linguists" at demonstrating the purported "language decay". We've come along way since then in our understanding of how languages evolve. On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:46 PM, Kirk Fraser wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Tristan Slominski < > tristan.slomin...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> "Thus a major improvement for world computing would be careful adherence >> to a world wide natural language" >> >> That seems to be contrary to how the world works. We can't even agree >> whether to read bytes from right to left or left to right ( >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endianness). >> >> http://xkcd.com/927/ >> >> > It appears you are successfully working with English as do most people who > communicate internationally. Not to say English best but it is what most > people know and using it in programs would make them readable by more > people until people adopt a purer language like Hebrew. > > -- > Kirk W. Fraser > http://freetom.info/TrueChurch - Replace the fraud churches with the true > church. > http://congressionalbiblestudy.org - Fix America by first fixing its > Christian foundation. > http://freetom.info - Example of False Justice common in America > > ___ > fonc mailing list > fonc@vpri.org > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > > ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
It appears you are successfully working with English as do most people [**citation needed**] who communicate internationally. Not to say English best but it is what most people know [**citation needed**] and using it in programs would make them readable by more people [**no evidence for this hypothesis**] until people adopt [**no evidence for this hypothesis**] a purer language [**citation needed**] like Hebrew [**citation needed**]. On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:47 PM, John Carlson wrote: > Esperanto was intended to be a human understandable language. Lojban is > intended to be a computer and human understandable language...huge > difference. > On Apr 4, 2013 3:39 PM, "Kirk Fraser" wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:26 PM, John Carlson wrote: >> >>> I didn't see lojban mentioned. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban >>> >> Consider it equal to Esperanto in context of my argument. >> >> ___ >> fonc mailing list >> fonc@vpri.org >> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >> >> > ___ > fonc mailing list > fonc@vpri.org > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > > ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
Actually zero difference in readability by me or anyone else who understands English but not Lojban or any trivial language. On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:47 PM, John Carlson wrote: > Esperanto was intended to be a human understandable language. Lojban is > intended to be a computer and human understandable language...huge > difference. > On Apr 4, 2013 3:39 PM, "Kirk Fraser" wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:26 PM, John Carlson wrote: >> >>> I didn't see lojban mentioned. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban >>> >> Consider it equal to Esperanto in context of my argument. >> >> ___ >> fonc mailing list >> fonc@vpri.org >> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >> >> > ___ > fonc mailing list > fonc@vpri.org > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > > -- Kirk W. Fraser http://freetom.info/TrueChurch - Replace the fraud churches with the true church. http://congressionalbiblestudy.org - Fix America by first fixing its Christian foundation. http://freetom.info - Example of False Justice common in America ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
Esperanto was intended to be a human understandable language. Lojban is intended to be a computer and human understandable language...huge difference. On Apr 4, 2013 3:39 PM, "Kirk Fraser" wrote: > On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:26 PM, John Carlson wrote: > >> I didn't see lojban mentioned. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban >> > Consider it equal to Esperanto in context of my argument. > > ___ > fonc mailing list > fonc@vpri.org > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > > ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Tristan Slominski < tristan.slomin...@gmail.com> wrote: > "Thus a major improvement for world computing would be careful adherence > to a world wide natural language" > > That seems to be contrary to how the world works. We can't even agree > whether to read bytes from right to left or left to right ( > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endianness). > > http://xkcd.com/927/ > > It appears you are successfully working with English as do most people who communicate internationally. Not to say English best but it is what most people know and using it in programs would make them readable by more people until people adopt a purer language like Hebrew. -- Kirk W. Fraser http://freetom.info/TrueChurch - Replace the fraud churches with the true church. http://congressionalbiblestudy.org - Fix America by first fixing its Christian foundation. http://freetom.info - Example of False Justice common in America ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
"Thus a major improvement for world computing would be careful adherence to
a world wide natural language"
That seems to be contrary to how the world works. We can't even agree
whether to read bytes from right to left or left to right (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endianness).
http://xkcd.com/927/
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:26 PM, John Carlson wrote:
> I didn't see lojban mentioned. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban
> On Apr 4, 2013 3:19 PM, "Kirk Fraser" wrote:
>
>> The main source of invention is not "math wins" as described on
>> http://www.vpri.org/html/work/ifnct.htm since the world would be
>> speaking math if it were really the source of inspiring more inventions
>> that improve the world's standard of living. Math helps add precision to
>> tasks that involve counting. Attempting to move from counting to logic
>> such as in statistics sometimes leads to false conclusions, especially if
>> logic is not given priority over the tools of math. For human value,
>> readability is required, so computer language improvements must focus on
>> natural language.
>>
>> Human language itself has problems seen in large projects such as Ubuntu
>> where contributors from around the world write in their own language and
>> tag their code with favorite names which mean nothing to the average reader
>> instead of words which best explain the application. Thus a major
>> improvement for world computing would be careful adherence to a world wide
>> natural language. We know cobbling together a variety of languages as in
>> Esperanto fails. While English is the world standard language for
>> business, Hebrew might be more inspiring. In any case the use of whole
>> words with common sense is more readable than acronyms.
>>
>> The first math language Fortran was soon displaced in business by more
>> readable code afforded by Cobol's longer variable names. In Smalltalk one
>> can write unreadable math as easily as readable code but Smalltalk may have
>> a few legacy bugs which nobody has yet fixed, possibly due to having
>> metaphor or polymorphism design errors, where the code looks good to
>> multiple programmers but fails to perform as truly desired in all
>> circumstances. Further reluctance to use commonsense whole words on some
>> objects such as "BltBlk" present a barrier to learning directly from the
>> code.
>>
>> One way to reduce these errors is to develop a set of executable rules
>> that produce Smalltalk, including checking method reuse implications. Then
>> one could make changes to a few rules and the rules would totally
>> reengineer Smalltalk accordingly, without forgetting or overlooking
>> anything that the programmer hasn't overlooked in the rules. There is also
>> room for a more efficient and more natural language. Smalltalk is
>> supposed to be 3 times faster to code than C and Expert systems are
>> supposed to be 10 times faster to code in than C. So a better language
>> needs development in two directions, easy to understand Expert rules using
>> common sense whole words and a built in library which enables "Star Trek's
>> Computer" or "Iron Man's Computer" level of hands free or at least keyboard
>> free function.
>>
>> There are three basic statements in any computer language: assignment, If
>> then else, and loop. Beyond that a computer language should provide rapid
>> access to all common peripherals. Expert systems tend to have a built in
>> loop which executes everything until there are no more changes. Some
>> industrial process controllers put a strict time limit on the loop.
>> Examining published rules of simple expert systems, it appears that random
>> rule order makes them easier to create while brainstorming, it is possible
>> to organize rules in a sequential order which eliminates the repeat until
>> no changes loop. Rule ordering can be automated to retain freedom of human
>> input order.
>>
>> Several years ago I worked with a Standford student to develop a language
>> we call Lt which introduces a concept of Object Strings which can make
>> rules a little easier. Unfortunately the project was written in VBasic
>> instead of Smalltalk so I've had insufficient ability to work on it since
>> the project ended. Soon I'll be working on converting it to Smalltalk then
>> reengineering it since it has a few design errors and needs a few more
>> development cycles educated by co-developing an NLP application.
>>
>> Here's a simple Lt method which is very similar to Smalltalk
>>
>> game
>> "example Lt code"
>> | bird player rock noise |
>>'objects
>> rock exists. player clumsy.
>> 'facts
>> player trips : [player {clumsy unlucky}, rock exists].
>> 'a if x w or x y and z
>> noise exists; is loud : (player trips, player noisy).
>> 'a and b if x or y
>> bird frightened : noise is loud.
>> 'a if x
>> (bird ~player has : bird frightened.
>> 'case: if b then not a else a.
>> bird player has.).
>>
>>
Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:26 PM, John Carlson wrote: > I didn't see lojban mentioned. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban > Consider it equal to Esperanto in context of my argument. ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
"The first math language Fortran was soon displaced in business by more readable code afforded by Cobol's longer variable names." Fortran was displaced in business because early Fortran had no structures and random record-oriented file access, and because of some silly government requirements for computer system procurement. "There are three basic statements in any computer language: assignment, If then else, and loop." ...except for those languages that have none of these three? I'd rather argue that all languages have 1) primitives, 2) means of composition, 3) means of abstraction. Some languages lack the third (Excel?) but these are not especially useful on large scale. "Now to complete the project without corporate resources, it is necessary to select an NLP application which is both more powerful and physically smaller than IBM's Watson which won against Jeopardy's best players. The most powerful NLP text in history is the Bible which is only 4 Mb instead of Watson's 4 Tb." I have absolutely no idea what "powerful" is supposed to mean in this context, but I'd bet the Reuters corpora against the Bible any day of the week. Bible sounds like a horrible source material for any automated NLP endeavor, no matter whether research oriented or production-oriented, since it's on all levels (lexical, semantic, factual) schizophrenically disconnected from modern textual material. "This level of NLP mastery in or external to an outside and indoor robot could be used to end poverty, illiteracy, crime, terrorism, and war around the world by growing and serving food, educating and entertaining a family with the same language and religion cradle to Ph.D" what? O_o; - Gath ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
I didn't see lojban mentioned. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban
On Apr 4, 2013 3:19 PM, "Kirk Fraser" wrote:
> The main source of invention is not "math wins" as described on
> http://www.vpri.org/html/work/ifnct.htm since the world would be speaking
> math if it were really the source of inspiring more inventions that improve
> the world's standard of living. Math helps add precision to tasks that
> involve counting. Attempting to move from counting to logic such as in
> statistics sometimes leads to false conclusions, especially if logic is not
> given priority over the tools of math. For human value, readability is
> required, so computer language improvements must focus on natural language.
>
> Human language itself has problems seen in large projects such as Ubuntu
> where contributors from around the world write in their own language and
> tag their code with favorite names which mean nothing to the average reader
> instead of words which best explain the application. Thus a major
> improvement for world computing would be careful adherence to a world wide
> natural language. We know cobbling together a variety of languages as in
> Esperanto fails. While English is the world standard language for
> business, Hebrew might be more inspiring. In any case the use of whole
> words with common sense is more readable than acronyms.
>
> The first math language Fortran was soon displaced in business by more
> readable code afforded by Cobol's longer variable names. In Smalltalk one
> can write unreadable math as easily as readable code but Smalltalk may have
> a few legacy bugs which nobody has yet fixed, possibly due to having
> metaphor or polymorphism design errors, where the code looks good to
> multiple programmers but fails to perform as truly desired in all
> circumstances. Further reluctance to use commonsense whole words on some
> objects such as "BltBlk" present a barrier to learning directly from the
> code.
>
> One way to reduce these errors is to develop a set of executable rules
> that produce Smalltalk, including checking method reuse implications. Then
> one could make changes to a few rules and the rules would totally
> reengineer Smalltalk accordingly, without forgetting or overlooking
> anything that the programmer hasn't overlooked in the rules. There is also
> room for a more efficient and more natural language. Smalltalk is
> supposed to be 3 times faster to code than C and Expert systems are
> supposed to be 10 times faster to code in than C. So a better language
> needs development in two directions, easy to understand Expert rules using
> common sense whole words and a built in library which enables "Star Trek's
> Computer" or "Iron Man's Computer" level of hands free or at least keyboard
> free function.
>
> There are three basic statements in any computer language: assignment, If
> then else, and loop. Beyond that a computer language should provide rapid
> access to all common peripherals. Expert systems tend to have a built in
> loop which executes everything until there are no more changes. Some
> industrial process controllers put a strict time limit on the loop.
> Examining published rules of simple expert systems, it appears that random
> rule order makes them easier to create while brainstorming, it is possible
> to organize rules in a sequential order which eliminates the repeat until
> no changes loop. Rule ordering can be automated to retain freedom of human
> input order.
>
> Several years ago I worked with a Standford student to develop a language
> we call Lt which introduces a concept of Object Strings which can make
> rules a little easier. Unfortunately the project was written in VBasic
> instead of Smalltalk so I've had insufficient ability to work on it since
> the project ended. Soon I'll be working on converting it to Smalltalk then
> reengineering it since it has a few design errors and needs a few more
> development cycles educated by co-developing an NLP application.
>
> Here's a simple Lt method which is very similar to Smalltalk
>
> game
> "example Lt code"
> | bird player rock noise |
> 'objects
> rock exists. player clumsy.
> 'facts
> player trips : [player {clumsy unlucky}, rock exists].
> 'a if x w or x y and z
> noise exists; is loud : (player trips, player noisy).
> 'a and b if x or y
> bird frightened : noise is loud.
> 'a if x
> (bird ~player has : bird frightened.
> 'case: if b then not a else a.
> bird player has.).
>
> ^
>'answer rock exists, player clumsy,
> player trips, noise exists, noise is loud
>
> 'bird frightened
>
> Now to complete the project without corporate resources, it is necessary
> to select an NLP application which is both more powerful and physically
> smaller than IBM's Watson which won against Jeopardy's best players. The
> most powerful NLP text in history is the Bible whi
[fonc] Natural Language Wins
The main source of invention is not "math wins" as described on
http://www.vpri.org/html/work/ifnct.htm since the world would be speaking
math if it were really the source of inspiring more inventions that improve
the world's standard of living. Math helps add precision to tasks that
involve counting. Attempting to move from counting to logic such as in
statistics sometimes leads to false conclusions, especially if logic is not
given priority over the tools of math. For human value, readability is
required, so computer language improvements must focus on natural language.
Human language itself has problems seen in large projects such as Ubuntu
where contributors from around the world write in their own language and
tag their code with favorite names which mean nothing to the average reader
instead of words which best explain the application. Thus a major
improvement for world computing would be careful adherence to a world wide
natural language. We know cobbling together a variety of languages as in
Esperanto fails. While English is the world standard language for
business, Hebrew might be more inspiring. In any case the use of whole
words with common sense is more readable than acronyms.
The first math language Fortran was soon displaced in business by more
readable code afforded by Cobol's longer variable names. In Smalltalk one
can write unreadable math as easily as readable code but Smalltalk may have
a few legacy bugs which nobody has yet fixed, possibly due to having
metaphor or polymorphism design errors, where the code looks good to
multiple programmers but fails to perform as truly desired in all
circumstances. Further reluctance to use commonsense whole words on some
objects such as "BltBlk" present a barrier to learning directly from the
code.
One way to reduce these errors is to develop a set of executable rules that
produce Smalltalk, including checking method reuse implications. Then one
could make changes to a few rules and the rules would totally reengineer
Smalltalk accordingly, without forgetting or overlooking anything that the
programmer hasn't overlooked in the rules. There is also room for a more
efficient and more natural language. Smalltalk is supposed to be 3 times
faster to code than C and Expert systems are supposed to be 10 times faster
to code in than C. So a better language needs development in two
directions, easy to understand Expert rules using common sense whole words
and a built in library which enables "Star Trek's Computer" or "Iron Man's
Computer" level of hands free or at least keyboard free function.
There are three basic statements in any computer language: assignment, If
then else, and loop. Beyond that a computer language should provide rapid
access to all common peripherals. Expert systems tend to have a built in
loop which executes everything until there are no more changes. Some
industrial process controllers put a strict time limit on the loop.
Examining published rules of simple expert systems, it appears that random
rule order makes them easier to create while brainstorming, it is possible
to organize rules in a sequential order which eliminates the repeat until
no changes loop. Rule ordering can be automated to retain freedom of human
input order.
Several years ago I worked with a Standford student to develop a language
we call Lt which introduces a concept of Object Strings which can make
rules a little easier. Unfortunately the project was written in VBasic
instead of Smalltalk so I've had insufficient ability to work on it since
the project ended. Soon I'll be working on converting it to Smalltalk then
reengineering it since it has a few design errors and needs a few more
development cycles educated by co-developing an NLP application.
Here's a simple Lt method which is very similar to Smalltalk
game
"example Lt code"
| bird player rock noise |
'objects
rock exists. player clumsy.
'facts
player trips : [player {clumsy unlucky}, rock exists]. 'a
if x w or x y and z
noise exists; is loud : (player trips, player noisy).
'a and b if x or y
bird frightened : noise is loud.
'a if x
(bird ~player has : bird frightened.
'case: if b then not a else a.
bird player has.).
^
'answer rock exists, player clumsy, player
trips, noise exists, noise is loud
'bird frightened
Now to complete the project without corporate resources, it is necessary to
select an NLP application which is both more powerful and physically
smaller than IBM's Watson which won against Jeopardy's best players. The
most powerful NLP text in history is the Bible which is only 4 Mb instead
of Watson's 4 Tb. Bible analysis can be very rewarding - getting software
to develop the footnotes in the free New Testament from
http://www.biblesforamerica.org would be a first step, rewriting them based
on my discovery of the true church being
