LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
From: Robin Fairbairns <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 09:28:58 +0000
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 12 Feb 2001 19:44:31 +0100." <v03110700b6addd26c875@[]>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (34 lines)
> >how do you do without markup in this case:
> >
> >  The $a$ in the formula is a variable
> The usual remark on this: Can you parse it? :-) -- If you can parse it, it
> must be possible. Right?


when i was first thinking of switching to computer science (from
mathematics) i went to the central library of the large city where my
parents lived, and read all the books they had on computing.  one
(written ca. 1952, iirc) included a detailed description of the
authors' algorithms for understanding and then translating natural

my first job, in 1968, was in an institute whose primary research
"product" was a natural language parser.

for two or more decades, this department has run a large (and pretty
successful, by its own lights) group of researchers who study the same

none of these groups has yet "finished the job".  they have some
interesting results, but probably could not parse the awful english
that i write.

can we practically hypothecate a markup language that depends on
comprehending natural language?

surely not, even in the hans aberg universe?