Re: machine translation

[HACKER G N <c9709244@ALINGA.NEWCASTLE.EDU.AU>]

On Thu, 23 Oct 1997, Edward Cherlin wrote:

> At 6:29 PM -0700 10/23/97, HACKER G N wrote:
> >On Thu, 23 Oct 1997, Mark Vines wrote:
> >> coi doi lobypli
> >>
> >> Someone mentioned that the Cyc system would be superior to
> >> Lojban for machine translation between natural languages.
> >> I hope we can discuss this further.
> >
> >To keep this discussion objective, let me include a snippet from the Cyc
> >site itself, about CycL:
> >
> >"CycL, the CYC representation language, is a large and extraordinarily
> >flexible knowledge representation language. It is essentially an
> >augmentation of first-order predicate calculus (FOPC), with extensions to
> >handle equality, default reasoning, skolemization, and some second-order
> >features. (For example, quantification over predicates is allowed in some
> >circumstances, and complete assertions can appear as intensional
> >components of other assertions.) CycL uses a form of circumscription,
> >includes the unique names assumption, and can make use of the closed world
> >assumption where appropriate."
> >
> >Now, who can tell me whether Lojban is capable of the same power and
> >flexibility as this computer language?
>
> My impression is that Lojban can express all of second-order logic
> (roughly, quantifying selbri) that can be expressed :-) but that power in
> this sense is not a linear scale. The advantage of CycL is supposed to be
> that what it represents is computable. Full second-order logic is anything
> but computable.

How is it not computable, if I may ask?
>
> >Well, as Jorge already pointed out, Lojban is not well-suited to
> >quantifying selbri, for one thing. What are some things that Lojban can
> >quantify besides, say, sumti and to a lesser extent indicators?
> >
> "Not well-suited" is a dangerous phrase in this context. Even though Lojban
> does not have syntax specifically for quantifying selbri, it can apparently
> express it using constructed terms. Please do not ask me how.

This came up in the discussion about cats other-than lying on chairs.
Jorge's example (as amended by John Cowan) was something like:

su'o bu'a cei na vreta zu'o le mlatu cu bu'a le stizu

and Jorge also said that quantified selbri were an abomination on the
langauge and that it didn't take much of a level of complexity before
Lojban lost it in the ability to quantify the selbri, or some other such
thing. Jorge, you'll have to clarify this or correct me if I'm wrong. :)

> I won't know
> at least until I understand "anti-ka", which I have been given to
> understand is the answer to my prayers and a can of worms.

? I've never even HEARD of "anti-ka". Sounds toxic. :)
>
>
> co'o mi'e ed.
> .i e'osai la lojban pluka ko

"Please! Enjoy Lojban."? I'm not sure I can enjoy Lojban on command. :)

Geoff