Print

Print


Ray Brown:
> > My opinion: row&col format is *more* 2d, but not fully. I suppose I'd
> > call it "linear-plus", or "double-linear" or somesuch.
>
> Yes - linear in 2 dimensions   :)

Actually, what this makes me think of is that Remi's row&col example
was just a different, direct-conversion format for nested parenthesis.

And yes, I am talking CS-term "linear", like a stack or queue. Whether
or not it involves *lines* - that is, those things one draws with one
stroke of a pen from point A to point B - to me seems wholly
irrelevant.

> I agree on both points - I think fractals are very much related, but
> difficult to see how they could be implemented in a rows&cols set up.

Per above, you could consider it a one-deep fractal. Would need N+1d
for an N-deep, if you extended it; obviously not a workable solution.
(Probably could be made more efficient, but I think it'd still be at
least O(log n), not O(1).)

> > "The thought that can be named is not the true thought." ;-) Or,
> > equivalently, "To know a thing is to forget its name."
>
> I like those quotes also   :)

The first is mine; the second is a Zen proverb also used to talk about art.

> > That is, what we refer to with language is *NOT* really a description
> > of the thing we are communicating, whatever it is, save for trivial
> > examples.
>
> It's a shadow of what we want to communicate. The current (and past)
> writing systems, which came long, long after speech, is are shadows of
> shadows.

*laugh* Indeed. Which is why it is so strange to me to have it be
portrayed ad the communication itself, and suggestions for something
else therefore appearing like a desire for telepathy by constrast.

> But altho ideally it would be helpful to know exactly how we think, it do
> not think our lack of knowledge necessarily prevents our making some
> tentative steps towards a NLF2DWS noesiography. After all, some 5
> millennia ago the Sumerians made a start on the process of committing
> spoken language to writing without any proper understanding of phonology

Oh, certainly. I just think that a research-based design would turn
out to be superior. I don't think that we have that kind of
understanding yet, or will likely have it in the next hundred years
(and I'm a CogSci major, so ought to be optimistic about such
things)... but we can certainly use what we know now.

For that matter, it might serve as a test of competing theories of
thought. If a system accurately mirrors the theory, then the one that
is more accurate should also be the one with higher comprehension,
retention, quick-comprehension, etc. rates, and be more robust against
a game of Telephone.

> But some one will object that it is 'off topic' and, indeed, I guess it is
>   :-P

Sounds like a topic heading to me...

 - Sai