cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Obviously the eight words that comprise
> programming language and which breaks Zipf's Law

...(programmer speaking)... and you know this HOW? And where are you getting those "eight words" from? And which programming language are we talking about? If you're talking about machine language, you are quite incorrect. I know this because I've had to read core dump.

> when used in programming can always be
> "translated" into English but a computer can
> hardly use this English to run a program. When
> "translated" into English every word and sentence
> will have to be parsed to be understood and they
> will obey Zipf's Law.

...and your proof for this is...?

I'd be quite intrigued to see the proof, since Zipf's law applies to the whole corpus. Examining messages here shows that they don't follow Zipf's law and yet are perfectly comprehensible. In fact, individual messages on this board do not show the same pattern of words as predicted in Zipf's law.


> It's very much the same way with math. Yes, you
> can claim that 2 + 2 = 4 is exactly the same thing
> as two plus two equals four but this "translation"
> isn't the same thing. There are strict rules and
> definitions in math for the meaning of every one
> of the terms but English has no such rules.

Actually, English has a LOT of linguistic rules. We notice when non-English speakers violate them.

> Indeed the English can be deconstructed in all
> manner of ways especially if the statement is
> spoken rather than written. "Four" and its
> homonyms have thousands of meanings as do "equal",
> "plus", and "two".

Now you're conflating spoken English with written English. "Four" is not the same as "for" or "fore."

> It's hard to imagine a language that
> is representative, metaphysical, digital, and
> never obeys Zipf's Law, but this is exactly what I
> believe we are dealing with in this specific
> instance.

I don't think you understand Zipf's law and I'm not sure you understand what's meant by digital here. Zipf's law simply predicts how often a certain word will occur in the entire corpus (and needs a very large corpus to show the example. Individual messages here or even single essays violate Zipf's law.)

> Math applies to a single equation or process and
> computer code runs a single program.

...and I'm beginning to suspect you have only a limited idea about math and computer code.


> Bird songs
> would be "unlimited" but the knowledge of
> individual birds is so extremely limited there
> would be very little for them to say about the
> inside of a small box. Their only applicable
> knowledge would probably be that their movements
> are highly restricted and there is air inside the
> box (and a very dead cat).

...or birds (I take it you don't own one.)

> Math and code also contain their limited
> metaphysics in their "grammar' and fixed
> definitions for each word. Both are effectively
> digital.

(raises eyebrow at term 'metaphysics')

> THIS is like Ancient Language if I am
> correct.

Language has to follow certain rules to be utilitarian and understandable. A language that is full of metaphysical analogies or jargon won't survive long enough to be passed on because it's not useful. You have to be able to count cattle and order rocks to be delivered to studios, to be able to record treaties and histories (real or imaginary.)

> language very apparent. Champollion's work simply
> seeks word meanings based on known language. It
> ignores parsing and the fluidity of modern
> languages. But, again, it's unlikely Champollion
> had any AL available to parse so he can't be
> blamed for the errors of later scholars.

He could read and speak at least 11 languages, including some ancient languages. [www.newworldencyclopedia.org]

This would be quite a bit more than either of us reads or speaks (I am fluent in one, tourist-fluent in about three, and can read bits and pieces of Latin and ancient Egyptian.) In addition, those who worked with him or continued his work were also talented linguists who could speak and write in many languages. As the language was translated, we learned many concepts that were not present in ancient writings (ma'at, for instance, or the idea of the multilayered soul).

And as we've seen, your "translations" don't hold up even when compared to other sections of things like the Pyramid Texts/Coffin Texts.

-- Byrd
Moderator, Hall of Ma'at