On Jan 22, 2010, at 3:45 AM, Rob Freeman wrote:
> ...It's common these days to blame a lack of general knowledge
> ("background") for our inability to program computers to understand
> natural language.
>
> I'm convinced much of the problem is that there is a wealth of detail
> in syntactic structure which we simply throw away.
>
> This is related to my point that there are many computational
> processes which cannot be completely summarized.  (01) 
You've not made a point you've only asserted a sentence with no clear meaning. 
If you would:  (02)
(a) Define what you mean by a computational process. (The usual definition in 
the context of theoretical computer science is a run of a Turing machine on a 
given input.)  (03)
(b) Define what it means to "summarize" a computational process; and  (04)
(c) Provide an example of a computational process that cannot be completely 
summarized.  (05)
Then I (and I suspect others) will be able to see the point of your assertion.  (06)
Chris Menzel  (07)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ 
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ 
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  (08)