Comments for webwords http://webwords.txhawkins.net it's words on the web, it's all just words. Thu, 11 Mar 2010 01:04:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 Comment on Stalled and Distracted by Bill Hensley http://webwords.txhawkins.net/2009/06/27/stalled-and-distracted/#comment-1480 Bill Hensley Mon, 29 Jun 2009 22:53:36 +0000 http://webwords.txhawkins.net/2009/06/27/stalled-and-distracted/#comment-1480 The pattern you're thinking of is "serialization", as implemented in many class libraries. These libraries handle object references by building a dictionary of objectIDs and object references (or pointers). When you serializing to disk, as you process each object you look it up in the dictionary. If it's not there you assign it a unique ID and add it to the dictionary. Then you right the object's ID with it to disk. Whenever you need to serialize an object reference (pointer) you write its ID to disk instead. When you deserialize you reverse the process. Each time you read an object into memory you add it to the dictionary. Each time you read an object ID you replace it with the corresponding object reference (pointer). This works because you the order you serialize an object is by following a depth first traverse of its web of references. If you encounter an object you haven't seen before (its not in the dictionary) you recurse and serialize it before going on to the next member in the current object. Perhaps you were asking a different question. Did I just explain something you already knew? The pattern you’re thinking of is “serialization”, as implemented in many class libraries. These libraries handle object references by building a dictionary of objectIDs and object references (or pointers). When you serializing to disk, as you process each object you look it up in the dictionary. If it’s not there you assign it a unique ID and add it to the dictionary. Then you right the object’s ID with it to disk. Whenever you need to serialize an object reference (pointer) you write its ID to disk instead.

When you deserialize you reverse the process. Each time you read an object into memory you add it to the dictionary. Each time you read an object ID you replace it with the corresponding object reference (pointer).

This works because you the order you serialize an object is by following a depth first traverse of its web of references. If you encounter an object you haven’t seen before (its not in the dictionary) you recurse and serialize it before going on to the next member in the current object.

Perhaps you were asking a different question. Did I just explain something you already knew?

]]> Comment on Scope control… by Bill Hensley http://webwords.txhawkins.net/2009/04/14/scope-control/#comment-32 Bill Hensley Tue, 28 Apr 2009 01:44:43 +0000 http://webwords.txhawkins.net/2009/04/14/scope-control/#comment-32 Here's your next challenge: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/technology/27jeopardy.html?_r=1 Here’s your next challenge:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/technology/27jeopardy.html?_r=1

]]> Comment on Parsing Language by Rob http://webwords.txhawkins.net/2009/02/15/parsing-language/#comment-10 Rob Thu, 19 Feb 2009 03:53:51 +0000 http://webwords.txhawkins.net/2009/02/15/parsing-language/#comment-10 That's one of the reasons people want to do this "understanding" thing. Once you have converted English into some internal format that captures the meaning of the sentence, it should be possible to convert it back to natural language again. The specific language would not matter much. You would have a machine translation device, and be one step towards a "Universal Translator". Remember how the translator on Enterprise had to have enough of a new language to start translating? It was doing statistical semantic parsing! I'm teaching my boy to speak English. You can do the Spanish later. That’s one of the reasons people want to do this “understanding” thing. Once you have converted English into some internal format that captures the meaning of the sentence, it should be possible to convert it back to natural language again. The specific language would not matter much. You would have a machine translation device, and be one step towards a “Universal Translator”.

Remember how the translator on Enterprise had to have enough of a new language to start translating? It was doing statistical semantic parsing!

I’m teaching my boy to speak English. You can do the Spanish later.

]]> Comment on Parsing Language by Clinton Balmain http://webwords.txhawkins.net/2009/02/15/parsing-language/#comment-9 Clinton Balmain Tue, 17 Feb 2009 14:23:01 +0000 http://webwords.txhawkins.net/2009/02/15/parsing-language/#comment-9 Okay, so you go build this thing that understands English - how hard would it be to make it understand, say, Spanish? Assuming you put in a new database of word definitions (replacing "man" with "hombre," for example) would that be adequate? Presumably the grammar would have to be tweaked. How far could you stray from English before the entire thing came apart? How hard would it be to do German, and then French, and then Japanese, and then Mandarin? I guess my question is: are you teaching your computer to understand LANGUAGE, or just ENGLISH? Okay, so you go build this thing that understands English - how hard would it be to make it understand, say, Spanish? Assuming you put in a new database of word definitions (replacing “man” with “hombre,” for example) would that be adequate? Presumably the grammar would have to be tweaked.

How far could you stray from English before the entire thing came apart? How hard would it be to do German, and then French, and then Japanese, and then Mandarin?

I guess my question is: are you teaching your computer to understand LANGUAGE, or just ENGLISH?

]]> Comment on Parsing Language by Bill Hensley http://webwords.txhawkins.net/2009/02/15/parsing-language/#comment-8 Bill Hensley Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:35:26 +0000 http://webwords.txhawkins.net/2009/02/15/parsing-language/#comment-8 Actually, it was Isaac Newton who said, "If I have seen so far, it is only because I stand on the shoulders of giants." At least, that's how history records it. Such a towering intellect as Newton could equally well have said, "If I have seen so far, it is only because I am surrounded by midgets." :-) Actually, it was Isaac Newton who said, “If I have seen so far, it is only because I stand on the shoulders of giants.” At least, that’s how history records it. Such a towering intellect as Newton could equally well have said, “If I have seen so far, it is only because I am surrounded by midgets.” :-)

]]> Comment on A swamp of details by Rob http://webwords.txhawkins.net/2009/02/02/a-swamp-of-details/#comment-7 Rob Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:48:40 +0000 http://webwords.txhawkins.net/2009/02/02/a-swamp-of-details/#comment-7 Bruce apparently doesn't read my other blog, or he'd know how this one is likely to turn out! This blog is actually not running on my hardware. The web hosting service I'm using (also the source for the domain name) offers Wordpress as one of the applications they support with the account. That makes it a lot easier because I don't need dynamic DNS and all that stuff. I do run my own web server in the orange zone on my Smoothwall box, but there are no "public" pages served from there (I hope). I use dyndns.com to keep tabs on the constantly changing IP address. I eventually hope to host the results of my current project from my web server. I don't think I can get all the code to run on the web-hosting machine. Bruce apparently doesn’t read my other blog, or he’d know how this one is likely to turn out!

This blog is actually not running on my hardware. The web hosting service I’m using (also the source for the domain name) offers Wordpress as one of the applications they support with the account. That makes it a lot easier because I don’t need dynamic DNS and all that stuff.

I do run my own web server in the orange zone on my Smoothwall box, but there are no “public” pages served from there (I hope). I use dyndns.com to keep tabs on the constantly changing IP address.

I eventually hope to host the results of my current project from my web server. I don’t think I can get all the code to run on the web-hosting machine.

]]> Comment on A swamp of details by Bill Hensley http://webwords.txhawkins.net/2009/02/02/a-swamp-of-details/#comment-6 Bill Hensley Thu, 05 Feb 2009 23:12:08 +0000 http://webwords.txhawkins.net/2009/02/02/a-swamp-of-details/#comment-6 Wow. Just discovered your new blog, Rob. (Thanks for the heads up.) You have a way of over-reaching with style, my friend. Bruce's comment was predictable: "He has WAY too much time on his hands." So now you're going to solve the natural language problem in your spare time? Let's hope Bruce is right. You better have LOTS of spare time!! On a (slightly) related topic, I'd like to see a post about how you've set up your server. I take it you are running it on your own hardware. Is it set up in a DMZ? Are you using a dynamic DNS service? Did you lease the domain name from the same company? What's involved in setting up a Wordpress blog on your own box, and are you planning to have any non-blog web pages on your site? Wow. Just discovered your new blog, Rob. (Thanks for the heads up.)

You have a way of over-reaching with style, my friend. Bruce’s comment was predictable: “He has WAY too much time on his hands.” So now you’re going to solve the natural language problem in your spare time? Let’s hope Bruce is right. You better have LOTS of spare time!!

On a (slightly) related topic, I’d like to see a post about how you’ve set up your server. I take it you are running it on your own hardware. Is it set up in a DMZ? Are you using a dynamic DNS service? Did you lease the domain name from the same company? What’s involved in setting up a Wordpress blog on your own box, and are you planning to have any non-blog web pages on your site?

]]> Comment on A swamp of details by Rob http://webwords.txhawkins.net/2009/02/02/a-swamp-of-details/#comment-5 Rob Wed, 04 Feb 2009 02:51:37 +0000 http://webwords.txhawkins.net/2009/02/02/a-swamp-of-details/#comment-5 Yes, there is a way to do this that is in common use! Programming languages like C++, C#, Visual Basic, Fortran, etc. have absolutely no ambiguity in their syntax and semantics. Every statement in these languages has exactly one meaning. Everything is crystal clear. The problem with these languages is that they are very narrow in terms of what can be expressed. There is less room for creative expression, and they do not extend well to uses beyond their original design. They evolve very slowly if at all. The other possibility is the Conceptual Dependency framework I mentioned in an earlier post. That was an effort to take every sentence and express its meaning in a unique and unambiguous way. I have started into the code to convert English sentences into CD language. Here's a taste: The sentences: "John owned a house. John gave the house to his son." Translate into: <code>(POSSESS (OBJECT house)(VALUE John)(TIME past)) (ATRANS (ACTOR John) (OBJECT house) (DIRECTION (FROM John)(TO John's son)) (TIME past))</code> Yes, there is a way to do this that is in common use! Programming languages like C++, C#, Visual Basic, Fortran, etc. have absolutely no ambiguity in their syntax and semantics. Every statement in these languages has exactly one meaning. Everything is crystal clear.
The problem with these languages is that they are very narrow in terms of what can be expressed. There is less room for creative expression, and they do not extend well to uses beyond their original design. They evolve very slowly if at all.
The other possibility is the Conceptual Dependency framework I mentioned in an earlier post. That was an effort to take every sentence and express its meaning in a unique and unambiguous way. I have started into the code to convert English sentences into CD language. Here’s a taste:
The sentences:
“John owned a house. John gave the house to his son.”
Translate into:
(POSSESS (OBJECT house)(VALUE John)(TIME past))
(ATRANS
(ACTOR John)
(OBJECT house)
(DIRECTION (FROM John)(TO John's son))
(TIME past))

]]> Comment on A swamp of details by Clinton Balmain http://webwords.txhawkins.net/2009/02/02/a-swamp-of-details/#comment-4 Clinton Balmain Tue, 03 Feb 2009 14:52:38 +0000 http://webwords.txhawkins.net/2009/02/02/a-swamp-of-details/#comment-4 Going back to your "I saw her duck..." example. Would there be a way to use a language, even an artificial one, without the semantic ambiguity? For example, define a language where "saw" ONLY means the past tense of "see." "Saw", meaning "to cut," would be "saw*" or "saww". Likewise, "duck" would only mean a web-footed bird. Any other definition, like "move down quickly" would require a modifier. Obviously this would require an enormous amount of work (how many modifiers would you need for the word "lie"?), but at least it would cut out the semantics issue. Going back to your “I saw her duck…” example. Would there be a way to use a language, even an artificial one, without the semantic ambiguity? For example, define a language where “saw” ONLY means the past tense of “see.” “Saw”, meaning “to cut,” would be “saw*” or “saww”. Likewise, “duck” would only mean a web-footed bird. Any other definition, like “move down quickly” would require a modifier.

Obviously this would require an enormous amount of work (how many modifiers would you need for the word “lie”?), but at least it would cut out the semantics issue.

]]> Comment on How to become intelligent by Clinton Balmain http://webwords.txhawkins.net/2009/01/20/how-to-become-intelligent/#comment-3 Clinton Balmain Tue, 03 Feb 2009 14:43:47 +0000 http://webwords.txhawkins.net/2009/01/20/how-to-become-intelligent/#comment-3 I don't think you need to worry about Sarah Connor. If she were coming for you, you'd already be dead. I don’t think you need to worry about Sarah Connor. If she were coming for you, you’d already be dead.

]]>