🚀 go-pugleaf

Lee Sau Dan ~{@nJX6X~} schrieb in Nachricht
<7fk8u3npmd.fsf@faith.csis.hku.hk>...
>>>>>> "Stefan" == Stefan M�hlbacher <e&s@kabsi.at> writes:
>
>
>You've only mentioned how the  names will be *created*.  How about the
>maintenance?  Who *assigns* meanings to the names?
>


Meaning emerges in a knowledge base when pieces of knowledge are added
that express a kind of relation among symbols.

Examples are: Relations:             Paris is the capital of france.
                          Algorithms:           i.e. a function that checks,
if a given number is a prime number.
                          Reasoning rules: When a is mother of b and a is
mother of c then b and c are siblings.
Maybe there are more.

So meaning assigns anybody that adds some knowledge to the knowledge base.
Remember that in this context i used the word 'meaning' from the point of
view of the knowledge base.
From the point of view of the person who added the knowledge the 'meaning'
of the word was already existing before.

>I don't think so.  Please tell  me which symbol in English maps to the
>Chinese  ideograph <qing2>,  which is  an idea  covering  { "emotion",
>"passion", "love",  ... } but not  being the union  or intersection of
>them.  Even  translators find it  hard to translate the  isolated word
><qing2> into Western languages.


In this case I suggest to use the word <qing2> also in the english mapping.
It is also not unusual to use some english words in german and some german
words in english.

>
>
>
>    Stefan> The advantage of this would be: nobody has to learn a new
>    Stefan> language, the translation into a natural language is just
>    Stefan> a matter of symbol mapping and syntax.
>
>Wrong.   Translation is  not simply  word-for-word  replacement.  Very
>often, word A in language X can  be translated into word P,Q,R or S in
>language  Y,  depending on  context.   At the  same  time,  word T  in
>language Y  may be translated  as words  B, C, D  or E in  language X,
>again depending on context.
>


Yes, this is the reason why I came to the idea of global unique symbols.
When language Y is a global unique symbol representation then it will
occur (practically) never that a global unique symbol will be translated to
words B,C,D or E depending on the context, because the meaning of the symbol
Y is unique.
B,C,D and E must be real synonyms. So each of them will be correct though
maybe some
sound better. But translation is no principal difficulty as far as the
meaning is important and not the style.

The other direction, the conversion of language X to a global unique symbol
representation may
be indeed sometimes ambigous. In this case the knowledgebase should ask,
which version to take,
before doing the conversion.
But the ambiguity is much more restricted than in the case of
translation from natural language to natural language.

>
>
>But if my memory is  function, you previous claimed that NOBODY needed
>to  understand the  internal representation  in your  proposed system.
>Now,  you  admit that  SOMEBODY  has  to  understand it.   Aren't  you
>shooting yourself on the foot?
>


No, I just said, the advantage of the use of natural words is, that nobody
has to learn
a new language. I meant, it is not necessary to learn thousands of new
words.


Stefan