| Author |
Message |
Laura F. Spira
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 2:17 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Maria Conlon wrote:
| Quote: | Robert Lieblich wrote:
Maria Conlon wrote:
Paul Wolff wrote:
Peter Olcott writes
What I am saying is that with numbers, (unlike many English
sentences) one is not free to interpret $727.43 as any other amount
than $723.47.
Good point, sir.
Except for the transposition, perhaps? (I may be missing something.)
Anyone who has had experience with COLAs (cost of living adjustments)
is well aware that dollar figures are not immutable. The $727.43 of
1995 and the $727.43 of 2005 are not the same thing at all. That's
why you are constantly seeing figures in "constant dollars" as of some
given base year. Thus, for example, the $727.43 of 2005 may be
$610.53 (made up number) in 1995 dollars. Comparing one year against
another without adjusting the numbers leads to unsatisfactory
conclusions about economic activity and the worth of any given
monetary amount. I now earn in one year about eight times as many
dollars as my father earned in his best year ever. That doesn't mean
my earnings are worth eight times what he earned.
As long as you don't care about context or such minor inconveniences
as reality, it's easy enough to say that a given dollar figure equals
itself. But it's often misleading to the point of being a lie.
How do you enter that in your little lexicon? And how many
superscripts will you need?
sigh> I fear that no one -- not even you, Bob -- has really understood
my question yet, rhetorical though it may have been.
1. Olcott wrote that you aren't free to interpret $727.43 as any other
amount than $723.47. Notice that the two amounts are *not the same*.
2. I assume Olcott merely transposed a couple of numbers there. Besides,
if you *are* free interpret $727.43 as $723.47, there's no reason to
limit the interpretation to other amounts, too. Why not $743.27, for
instance?
3. Am I losing my mind, or am I the only one to notice that the numbers
are different?
|
Paul did and I did. But even if he had transposed the numbers correctly
Mr.Olcott is deluded if he believes that there can be no ambiguity about
them.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 9:16 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Maria Conlon wrote:
[ ... ]
| Quote: | 1. Olcott wrote that you aren't free to interpret $727.43 as any other
amount than $723.47. Notice that the two amounts are *not the same*.
2. I assume Olcott merely transposed a couple of numbers there. Besides,
if you *are* free interpret $727.43 as $723.47, there's no reason to
limit the interpretation to other amounts, too. Why not $743.27, for
instance?
3. Am I losing my mind, or am I the only one to notice that the numbers
are different?
|
I noticed, Maria, although not until I had read your comment. I
particularly enjoyed the way Peter Olcott blew you off with "well,
it's just a typo." Can you imagine what a few typos would do to his
well-ordered (if impossible) scheme?[1] I simply took him at his
word, disregarded his typo, and pointed out that even if he'd not
mistranscribed the numbers he was still arguing for a level of
literality that real life doesn't allow.
[1] I can imagine plenty of errors when writers have to assign
superscript numbers to words as they write.
--
Bob Lieblich
Of whom Skitt's law requires a corresponding tyop |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 9:54 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"William" <william@lowerknowle.com> wrote in message news:1131254167.165192.47270@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
It is possible to communicate without losing or gaining the slightest
trace of meaning over the original meaning specified by the writer.
We do it with numbers all the time. Your paycheck is $727.43.
Everyone knows exactly and precisely what this means. There is
not the slightest trace of miscommunication with numbers.
Not so. Consider:
1. Many countries use the $ sign for their local currency. Without some
context, we cannot know which currency is implied.
2. Many countries use the comma to indicate the decimal place, and a
period/full-stop to indicate thousands. Whilst it is true that the
quoted figure only has two digits after the decimal-point, this could
be due to a typo. Context would clarify for us.
3. The figure may be current or historical. Context would tell us
which.
So, it could be that the figure means "Seven hundred and twenty seven
thousand, four hundred and thirty Hong Kong dollars in 1895" or it
could be that it means "Seven hundred and twenty seven US dollars and
forty three cents in 2005", or could it mean a wide range of other
things. Without context, we can only guess.
In short, as with words, so with numbers. We must have context in order
to extract meaning.
--
WH
Not true. Often we must use context to narrow down a set of meanings |
to the one intended meaning, yet this set of meanings can be derived
without any specified context.
The problem with your way of looking at it allows to much subjective
leeway. If people would have used my process for getting the understanding
of the verse that I quoted, their response would not have been from the set
of possible meanings. They explicitly over-rode the precise meaning that
was specified so that it would correspond to their preconceived notions.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 9:59 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"Laura F. Spira" <laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message news:dkkal7$pl1$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
| Quote: | Maria Conlon wrote:
Robert Lieblich wrote:
Maria Conlon wrote:
Paul Wolff wrote:
Peter Olcott writes
What I am saying is that with numbers, (unlike many English
sentences) one is not free to interpret $727.43 as any other amount
than $723.47.
Good point, sir.
Except for the transposition, perhaps? (I may be missing something.)
Anyone who has had experience with COLAs (cost of living adjustments)
is well aware that dollar figures are not immutable. The $727.43 of
1995 and the $727.43 of 2005 are not the same thing at all. That's
why you are constantly seeing figures in "constant dollars" as of some
given base year. Thus, for example, the $727.43 of 2005 may be
$610.53 (made up number) in 1995 dollars. Comparing one year against
another without adjusting the numbers leads to unsatisfactory
conclusions about economic activity and the worth of any given
monetary amount. I now earn in one year about eight times as many
dollars as my father earned in his best year ever. That doesn't mean
my earnings are worth eight times what he earned.
As long as you don't care about context or such minor inconveniences
as reality, it's easy enough to say that a given dollar figure equals
itself. But it's often misleading to the point of being a lie.
How do you enter that in your little lexicon? And how many
superscripts will you need?
sigh> I fear that no one -- not even you, Bob -- has really understood my question yet, rhetorical though it may have been.
1. Olcott wrote that you aren't free to interpret $727.43 as any other amount than $723.47. Notice that the two amounts are *not
the same*.
2. I assume Olcott merely transposed a couple of numbers there. Besides, if you *are* free interpret $727.43 as $723.47, there's
no reason to limit the interpretation to other amounts, too. Why not $743.27, for instance?
3. Am I losing my mind, or am I the only one to notice that the numbers are different?
Paul did and I did. But even if he had transposed the numbers correctly Mr.Olcott is deluded if he believes that there can be no
ambiguity about them.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
|
$723.47 specifies a singular precise semantic meaning because it comes
with a default set of assumptions that if not explicitly over-ridden is taken
to be logically entailed. This would be Dollars of the United States of America,
in the current timeframe, with notation conventions of the USA. I should have
just said the number 723.47. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
William
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 10:46 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:> $723.47 specifies a singular precise semantic
meaning because it comes
| Quote: | with a default set of assumptions that if not explicitly over-ridden is taken
to be logically entailed. This would be Dollars of the United States of America,
in the current timeframe, with notation conventions of the USA.
|
Not here, it doesn't. It comes with my set of assumptions, not yours;
unless you state what your assumptions were, and that would be the
context I was seeking.
| Quote: | I should have
just said the number 723.47.
|
That would change the problem but not resolve it. Re-read what I wrote,
and you will see why.
If you are to teach us all how to use words, you must become more
skilled in your own usage.
--
WH |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:10 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
| Quote: |
"William" <william@lowerknowle.com> wrote in message news:1131254167.165192.47270@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Peter Olcott wrote:
It is possible to communicate without losing or gaining the slightest
trace of meaning over the original meaning specified by the writer.
We do it with numbers all the time. Your paycheck is $727.43.
Everyone knows exactly and precisely what this means. There is
not the slightest trace of miscommunication with numbers.
Not so. Consider:
1. Many countries use the $ sign for their local currency. Without some
context, we cannot know which currency is implied.
2. Many countries use the comma to indicate the decimal place, and a
period/full-stop to indicate thousands. Whilst it is true that the
quoted figure only has two digits after the decimal-point, this could
be due to a typo. Context would clarify for us.
3. The figure may be current or historical. Context would tell us
which.
So, it could be that the figure means "Seven hundred and twenty seven
thousand, four hundred and thirty Hong Kong dollars in 1895" or it
could be that it means "Seven hundred and twenty seven US dollars and
forty three cents in 2005", or could it mean a wide range of other
things. Without context, we can only guess.
In short, as with words, so with numbers. We must have context in order
to extract meaning.
--
WH
Not true. Often we must use context to narrow down a set of meanings
to the one intended meaning, yet this set of meanings can be derived
without any specified context.
The problem with your way of looking at it allows to much subjective
leeway. If people would have used my process for getting the understanding
of the verse that I quoted, their response would not have been from the set
of possible meanings. They explicitly over-rode the precise meaning that
was specified so that it would correspond to their preconceived notions.
|
But *you* specified that "precise meaning," and inevitably, though you
refuse to admit it, the process by which you did so was subjective.
You brought to it your preconceptions not only about the meanings of
the individual words but about what inferences should be drawn from
them. Evan Kirshenbaum has established to my satisfaction, if not
yours, that a person living at the time the passage was written,
confronted with that passage in its original language, would have
brought different preconceptions to the process of interpretation and
would not have understood it as you claim to have.
I could, and probably will, go on at further length about this, but
you've seen and read it all before, and not just from me, and haven't
understood it at all. That's your problem. Mine is getting out of
this thread.
--
Bob Lieblich
Which way to the egress? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:21 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"William" <william@lowerknowle.com> wrote in message news:1131291980.088649.224290@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:> $723.47 specifies a singular precise semantic
meaning because it comes
with a default set of assumptions that if not explicitly over-ridden is taken
to be logically entailed. This would be Dollars of the United States of America,
in the current timeframe, with notation conventions of the USA.
Not here, it doesn't. It comes with my set of assumptions, not yours;
unless you state what your assumptions were, and that would be the
context I was seeking.
I should have
just said the number 723.47.
That would change the problem but not resolve it. Re-read what I wrote,
and you will see why.
If you are to teach us all how to use words, you must become more
skilled in your own usage.
--
WH
So by this are you proposing that some countries would encode the value |
os Pi as 3,1415926 (using a comma instead of a decimal point) ??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Grammer Genious
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:21 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Robert Lieblich <robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:436D809A.419D3A17@verizon.net...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
[ ... ]
This is the inevitable consequence of getting machines to fully
comprehend
natural language.
[I snipped everything preceding this one sentence, but I'd like to
note that I have no idea what the referent of "This" was supposed to
be. Not that it matters.]
You're going to get a machine to "fully comprehend natural language"?
This is your project? This is what you are trying to persuade us is
"just" another task involving analysis, programming, and data input?
(And you're the one who keeps saying it's "just" this or "just"
that.) This is what you're going to patent?
You, sir, are either the most naive person in the world or insane.
Your choice.
|
I remember reading a good example for the task we are setting the machine up
to do. The machine must be able to comprehend this exchange. (Not just
translate it -- comprehend it.)
Woman: "I'm leaving you."
Man: "Who is he?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
William
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:26 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
| Quote: | The problem with your way of looking at it allows to much subjective
leeway. If people would have used my process for getting the understanding
of the verse that I quoted, their response would not have been from the set
of possible meanings. They explicitly over-rode the precise meaning that
was specified so that it would correspond to their preconceived notions.
|
Pardon me for using my assumptions instead of yours. But how shall I
know your assumptions, if you won't state them.?
Of course, you and I both know that the real problem is that you are
unable to recognise the existence of your own assumptions. Thus you
believe that your "meaning" is unadorned with such things, and is thus
"pure". It isn't, you are just using your set of preconceptions rather
than mine. But you can't recognise your own preconceptions and thus you
are deluded into believing that they neither exist nor influence your
statements.
--
WH |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:27 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote [quoting WH]:
[ ... ]
| Quote: | So by this are you proposing that some countries would encode the value
os Pi as 3,1415926 (using a comma instead of a decimal point) ???
|
I would infer as much. See
<http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DecimalPoint.html>.
Needless to say, millions of people in the countries that follow that
practice are speakers of English with varying degrees of facility.
--
Bob Lieblich
Glad to be dealing with facts for once |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:27 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"Robert Lieblich" <robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote in message news:436E2B01.A6A50F05@verizon.net...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
"William" <william@lowerknowle.com> wrote in message news:1131254167.165192.47270@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Peter Olcott wrote:
It is possible to communicate without losing or gaining the slightest
trace of meaning over the original meaning specified by the writer.
We do it with numbers all the time. Your paycheck is $727.43.
Everyone knows exactly and precisely what this means. There is
not the slightest trace of miscommunication with numbers.
Not so. Consider:
1. Many countries use the $ sign for their local currency. Without some
context, we cannot know which currency is implied.
2. Many countries use the comma to indicate the decimal place, and a
period/full-stop to indicate thousands. Whilst it is true that the
quoted figure only has two digits after the decimal-point, this could
be due to a typo. Context would clarify for us.
3. The figure may be current or historical. Context would tell us
which.
So, it could be that the figure means "Seven hundred and twenty seven
thousand, four hundred and thirty Hong Kong dollars in 1895" or it
could be that it means "Seven hundred and twenty seven US dollars and
forty three cents in 2005", or could it mean a wide range of other
things. Without context, we can only guess.
In short, as with words, so with numbers. We must have context in order
to extract meaning.
--
WH
Not true. Often we must use context to narrow down a set of meanings
to the one intended meaning, yet this set of meanings can be derived
without any specified context.
The problem with your way of looking at it allows to much subjective
leeway. If people would have used my process for getting the understanding
of the verse that I quoted, their response would not have been from the set
of possible meanings. They explicitly over-rode the precise meaning that
was specified so that it would correspond to their preconceived notions.
But *you* specified that "precise meaning," and inevitably, though you
refuse to admit it, the process by which you did so was subjective.
|
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west,
that there is none beside X. X is the Y, and there is none else.
That the above statement is saying that {Only X exists} is entailed
by the meaning of the words, regardless of the value substituted for X.
{there is none else} is neither ambiguous nor equivocal.
| Quote: | You brought to it your preconceptions not only about the meanings of
the individual words but about what inferences should be drawn from
them. Evan Kirshenbaum has established to my satisfaction, if not
yours, that a person living at the time the passage was written,
confronted with that passage in its original language, would have
brought different preconceptions to the process of interpretation and
would not have understood it as you claim to have.
I could, and probably will, go on at further length about this, but
you've seen and read it all before, and not just from me, and haven't
understood it at all. That's your problem. Mine is getting out of
this thread.
--
Bob Lieblich
Which way to the egress? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:29 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"The Grammer Genious" <washcourthouse@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:w4qbf.695$w_6.603@trndny09...
| Quote: | Robert Lieblich <robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:436D809A.419D3A17@verizon.net...
Peter Olcott wrote:
[ ... ]
This is the inevitable consequence of getting machines to fully
comprehend
natural language.
[I snipped everything preceding this one sentence, but I'd like to
note that I have no idea what the referent of "This" was supposed to
be. Not that it matters.]
You're going to get a machine to "fully comprehend natural language"?
This is your project? This is what you are trying to persuade us is
"just" another task involving analysis, programming, and data input?
(And you're the one who keeps saying it's "just" this or "just"
that.) This is what you're going to patent?
You, sir, are either the most naive person in the world or insane.
Your choice.
I remember reading a good example for the task we are setting the machine up
to do. The machine must be able to comprehend this exchange. (Not just
translate it -- comprehend it.)
Sure and this all boils down to the structure of the knowledge representation. |
Once the KR is right, everything else falls right into place.
| Quote: | Woman: "I'm leaving you."
Man: "Who is he?"
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
William
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:30 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
| Quote: | So by this are you proposing that some countries would encode the value
os Pi as 3,1415926 (using a comma instead of a decimal point) ???
|
Exactly so. See:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DecimalPoint.html
But, of course, you already know this from your research into your
"15-year project".
--
WH |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:30 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
[ ... ];
| Quote: | $723.47 specifies a singular precise semantic meaning because it comes
with a default set of assumptions that if not explicitly over-ridden is taken
to be logically entailed. This would be Dollars of the United States of America,
in the current timeframe, with notation conventions of the USA. I should have
just said the number 723.47.
|
Is that decimal, octal, duodecimal ... ?
And what makes you think that your default assumption is everyone's
default assumption?
--
Bob Lieblich
Driving himself crazy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:43 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"William" <william@lowerknowle.com> wrote in message news:1131294402.479202.175590@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
The problem with your way of looking at it allows to much subjective
leeway. If people would have used my process for getting the understanding
of the verse that I quoted, their response would not have been from the set
of possible meanings. They explicitly over-rode the precise meaning that
was specified so that it would correspond to their preconceived notions.
Pardon me for using my assumptions instead of yours. But how shall I
know your assumptions, if you won't state them.?
I have stated them, precisely literal. The problem is that people are |
implying too much subjective leeway in the definition of literal itself.
How about this one. The precisely literal meaning can be imprecisely
defined as an element from the set of all possible methods of semantic
derivation, such that only a single meaning is thus derived. This is a
backwards definition that starts with the intended goal. There are
several sources of the derivation of more than one meaning for a
sentence, I think that this set is comprehensive, correct me if I am wrong.
There are only three categories of ways that a sentence can be taken
to mean more than one thing:
(1) Word sense meanings (Can't tell which one is intended)
(2) Structural ambiguity, can't tell which words apply to which other words.
Things such as tying a pronoun back to its noun.
(3) Vagueness, using words that inherently possess imprecise meanings.
If we eliminate the first two, then we derive a singular mathematical mapping
from the words to the intended meaning. I always have people translate
vague terms such as "quite a while" into range estimates.
| Quote: |
Of course, you and I both know that the real problem is that you are
unable to recognise the existence of your own assumptions. Thus you
believe that your "meaning" is unadorned with such things, and is thus
"pure". It isn't, you are just using your set of preconceptions rather
than mine. But you can't recognise your own preconceptions and thus you
are deluded into believing that they neither exist nor influence your
statements.
--
WH
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in