13Feb01 14:45 Hans Aberg wrote:
> Otherwise, I stated the general principle, the better the parsing becomes,
> the less markup will be needed (or the more sophisticated it can be).
The question is "can markup be avoided completely?"
I bet no.
> As for that natural language parsing problem, one problem is that humans,
> using their massively parallel supercomputers, can scan a sentence and try
> many different patterns. Let's try parsing the Frank Mittelbach example:
> The a in the formula is a variable.
> You would probably use the context knowledge that it is composed of
> English
> and Math and scan it to recognize that the second "a", but not the first,
> is a indefinite article. Then from that, you would infer that the first
> "a"
> must be a math symbol, which is supported by the semantic information of
> the wording "in the formula".
As for a math environment, how will you parse (without math markup) the last
sentence in the following example:
($G$ acts on a manifold $M$. $G_1,G_2,A$  subgroups of $G$. $X$ 
a submanifold of $M$. $a \in A, p \in X$.)
$$ L = \{ ga \cdot p \mid \mskip10mu p \in X \} $$
$$ M = \{ g \cdot ap \mid \mskip15mu g \in G_1, p \in X \} $$
$$ N = \{ gap \mid \mskip20mu g \in G_2 \} $$
Editor writes: The gap in the last formula [i.e. \mskip20mu] should be
made like in the first one and the $gap$ should be made like in the
second one.
The following example is not that serious :) (and, in fact, I'ld write
$\mathfrak{so}$ instead of $so$):
This Lie algebra is $so_n(\mathbb C)$. Let's see why it is so [or
$so$?].
Somebody with better English (and maybe with experience in other fields
of math) will find better examples, I think.
Sasha
