Lojban morphology: Difference between revisions

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Gleki moved page jbocre: Lojban morphology to Lojban morphology without leaving a redirect: Text replace - "jbocre: L" to "L")
m (Gleki moveu a página lojban morphology para Lojban morphology através de um redirecionamento)
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{See also|Gödel Numbers and Lojban}} for some people complaining about it.


A big nasty mess.
[[Jay Kominek]] notices that there is a body of literature describing algorithms which can produce finite automata, given positive and negative examples of the strings which the automata are supposed to recognize. Presumably someone with enough spare time could write some software which takes a big list of examples, and generates an automaton. (And then, whenever you find things that should be, but aren't, or are, but shouldn't be recognized, then can just be added to the appropriate list, and the automata regenerated, rather than the current system used by [[la jbofi'e]]. <u>Probably</u> not the best way of generating a human-interpretable description of the morphology, but it sure would be convenient from the stand point of automated recognition.)
 
See [[jbocre: G�del Numbers and Lojban]] for some people complaining about it.
 
[[jbocre: Jay Kominek|Jay]] just noticed that there is a body of literature describing algorithms which can produce finite automata, given positive and negative examples of the strings which the automata are supposed to recognize. Presumably someone with enough spare time could write some software which takes a big list of examples, and generates an automaton. (And then, whenever you find things that should be, but aren't, or are, but shouldn't be recognized, then can just be added to the appropriate list, and the automata regenerated, rather than the current system used by [[jbocre: jbofi'e|jbofi'e]]. ''Probably'' not the best way of generating a human-interpretable description of the morphology, but it sure would be convenient from the stand point of automated recognition.)

Latest revision as of 15:50, 2 January 2016

for some people complaining about it.

Jay Kominek notices that there is a body of literature describing algorithms which can produce finite automata, given positive and negative examples of the strings which the automata are supposed to recognize. Presumably someone with enough spare time could write some software which takes a big list of examples, and generates an automaton. (And then, whenever you find things that should be, but aren't, or are, but shouldn't be recognized, then can just be added to the appropriate list, and the automata regenerated, rather than the current system used by la jbofi'e. Probably not the best way of generating a human-interpretable description of the morphology, but it sure would be convenient from the stand point of automated recognition.)