> > 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.
>
> I don't know. I guess it must be machine
> language. I speak to a couple experts in the
> field but don't understand quite a bit of their work.

Still being pedantic, but having only 8 words in machine language is not possible. The number of words is a power of 2... so 2, 4, 16, 32, etc. As you said, you don't understand the work.

And it'll be the same with languages other than English.

> One of these days I'll have to ask one to "define"
> the simplest word. It will probably be over my
> head though.

AND would be the simplest. (no, not kidding.)


> The Pyramid Texts
> simply leaped out as not containing any of the
> words that cause the the incidence of word usage
> to be a straight line on a logarithmic scale. It
> was researching this that led me to Zipf's Law.

Except that you don't know this. You're working from the ENGLISH (and outdated) translation which isn't the same as the original.


> Part of the reason that Ancient Language stands
> out so much as being so very very different than
> any modern language is that there are so very few
> words in it.

I haven't seen any proof of an "Ancient Language" other than Egyptian.

> > Now you're conflating spoken English with
> written
> > English. "Four" is not the same as "for" or
> > "fore."
>
> No matter. The fact is each of these words have
> many definitions and connotations as well as
> unique usages even excluding homonyms.

I'd seriously like to see what the other definitions (in English) are for the word "four." Not the spoke one. The written one. Likewise "for" and "fore."


> All modern human languages are symbolic, abstract,
> and have no fixed definitions.

If that was true we couldn't communicate.

> I'm using the definition of "metaphysics" that is
> "basis of science".

What the heck? "Metaphysics" is not the same as "basis of science."

> > Language has to follow certain rules to be
> > utilitarian and understandable.
>
> Yes. But no matter how clearly, precisely, and
> literally you express yourself many will parse
> your words in wholly unintended ways. No two
> individuals will parse any sentence the exact same
> way. It's impossible because words lack fixed
> meanings. Ancient words had fixed meanings.

I think you just contradicted yourself.

> AL was the "basis of ancient science", I believe.
> Language was logical and meanings were fixed. We
> have nothing at all like it but math comes closest
> but where equations have a single application
> sentences had universal application.

Oh dear. I see that you haven't studied Aristotle or formal logic. I can recommend "Game of Logic" by Lewis Carroll as a good introduction to it. Aristotelian logic is the basis of math, proofs (scientific and otherwise) and discourse. This is well documented and was revolutionary when it was introduced... by Aristotle.

-- Byrd
Moderator, Hall of Ma'at