Tuesday is the new Friday

Let me be the first to say it.

"Guidelines for submission" - Computational Linguistics

I am reading their guidance on whether your submission is appropriate:

"A good diagnostic here is whether a significant proportion of the references in your paper are to publications in that area: see the lists of Journals"

So what they are saying is, that their Journal is a club newsletter limited to insiders. I conclude - with a sigh - that this must be how many "subjects" define themselves and come into their own: through sufficient published material to claim as a credential and to use for self definition.
Update (sarcasm): "A good guideline would be that you are reproducing the work of another author whose work already appears in one of our Journal".
Update 2: The real problem is this policy prevents publication of new ideas that are not related to anything in their "field", such as a contribution from a different perspective that is nevertheless relevant.
Update 3: Another way to put it is this: the fact that I have not read the same material as the magazine editors does not mean I have nothing relevant to say.

Refining Truism 7

I was commenting on the story about making abalone shell beads and losing them and trying not to cry. In the end I did make beads and I made a beautiful cuttlefish. In a comment, I wrote:

So I get my revenge: (I-make->cry)* does not resolve to the usual (I-make->cry) but to the (I-make->beauty).

Is this a semantic pattern worth noting? Apparently Truism 7 not only expects the removal of contrast but also other improvements: implicit becomes explicit, negative (crying) becomes positive (beauty). Perhaps there are other such examples. Let's say, Truism 7 "enhanced" can include such improvements and each has its own flavor. I wanna say this bad-to-good replacement might be characteristic of "revenge".
Update: Leave to another generation of to figure out if square brackets and * commute.
Update: Want 6N: N([Z]),Z to be supplemented to 6N* which is N([Z]*)::Z

Aww cuttlefish

Theory of how to organize topic dictionaries

From past code:
// Dictionary.cpp : Defines the entry point for the console application.
/****************************************************************************
The original "vision" wasn't followed too well. Here it is for reference (it is more or less nonsense at this point but mentions important topics):

Dictionary trees are built by linking together generic dictionary "nodes". In addition to properties described below, every dictionary is also a C++ class and is allowed to have other methods and member variables.

Every dictionary will have certain properties, to be explained below. These are:
 - an optional word list “self”
 - a "complete" flag that can be set or cleared. When cleared we say the dictionary is "in a neutral state". When "complete" the dictionary will have a current set of values that can be saved (or "vaulted" or “grasped”).
 - a readText( ) method.
 - a set of child dictionaries. The readToken function is called on them before it is called on the self. 
 - a vault "policy" which determines what information is saved when it is complete. [NAH, it is a way of delaying the saving until a subsequent event.]

The dictionary tree acts like a seive, reading text. The incoming text is tokenized and groups of the tokens [nowadays I pass a token and ALL of the text through ALL dictionaries, once for each for each token] are sent down into the tree via the readToken( ) being called at the root.
The simplest version of this is to pass in three tokens at a time: { previous, current, next }, looping through the text as current is incremented.
This results in various parts of the tree having content modified and, occasionally some part of the tree is in a "complete" state (or "lit up") . 
Whenever that happens, the whole tree gets a "vault" signal, and each dictionary node will implement a "vault policy". Unused tokens are stored in a "dreg" or discard pile for external processing.

Just as tokens are passed down through the tree from parent to child, so also the vault command is sent from above.[I WISH IT WAS SO CLEAN]


Simple- dictionary
-----------------
A simple dictionary has no children but has a word list with a readText( ) method. It returns true if token was matched to an entry or entries in the dictionary. A simple dictionary is "complete" when this match has occurred.
This flag can be cleared. The vault policy is: no vault but always clear the "complete" flag. Vaulting is considered a parent responsibility.

Product- dictionary
---------------------------------
A dictionary composed of an array of dictionaries called its "dimensions". A product- dictionary is "complete" only when all of its dimensions are complete. Like a simple- dictionary the vault policy is: no vault but clear the "complete" flag. (It is temping to say this kind of dictionary is just a parent with all children needing to be complete. But that feels like the wrong ontology.)

State- dictionary
-----------------------
This is a dictionary with an internal state, including a default state. This kind of dictionary is always "complete" and occurs as a dimension of a parent dictionary. It's readText( ) method can change its internal state. Its vault policy is to reset state to the default. When the parent gets a vault command it uses this state's current state to determine what and how the parent vaults its other information. Afterwards, the parent sends the vault command into the state dictionary (resetting it to default).

Parent- dictionary
------------------
A dictionary with a list of child dictionaries. It can also contain a "self" word list. The readText( ) is
implemented by calling it on each child. Then it calls readText( ) on its self dicitonary. A parent- dictionary is "complete" if any one of its children is complete and [optionally] if its self dictionary is complete. The parent- implements a vault policy of saving data from its children and variables. Then it invokes the vault policy of its children.
We may distinguish parent "self" dictionaries that must be complete, for the parent to be complete, versus parents with a self dictionary which is not needed for completeness but may be used in the vault policy.
Call the second sort of parent a "lenient".
[In fact this idea was never put into the code.]
*******************************************************************************/

Vision of a Cuttlefish - plum wood carving with abalone inlay

A work in progress. Pretty crude but strong. It is an ittobori carving, I am using an exacto knife and sandpaper.

Dining out in Concord MA

Although the best places to eat in Concord are in the next town over (Bedford - good sushi at Ginger and decent burritos at Chipotle) sometimes we like to stay close to home. There are some pizza places on Thoreau Str and a place at the depot that changes owners every few years and currently is too expensive for my purposes. Also, West Concord has several places - but that is farther than Bedford and we don't go over there. Let me focus my comments on Main Street.
There are three places on Main Str. we know well and one new place.
 - The new place looks like they serve sandwiches to teenagers with imported mineral water. Split personality? Looks too dark inside and we have not tried it out.
 - The Colonial Inn is a good standbye. Atmosphere: There is lots of genuine atmosphere - the place has several hundred years -worth of food smells, baked into its walls. The crowd is international, non Concordian. Food: The food is pretty good. Great burger, good chowder, and where else can you get Indian Pudding? It has been while since we had a roast beef dinner there - but it is the kind of place where you can expect it to be decent. Service: spotty, usually bad. We sit down and the wait staff stand around talking instead of bringing water and menus.
 - The Main Street Cafe is a good place for a beer or to meet a friend for lunch. Atmosphere: Always busy with the hum of energy that tourists and people out from Boston bring. As a result, the place is a bit chaotic. With an open mic night, this is about the only place in downtown Concord that might be said to have "night life". Food: Only so so. Burgers are not great, salads are a bit heavy. I guess there are a variety of lighter fares and vegetarian items. Service: Spotty. Owner tries to do a good job but wait staff is careless.
 - Helens is as good place for a malted, with the little league team. Usually almost empty by 7:30, no tourists. One wonders, why the tourists are at the Colonial Inn and Main Street Cafe but not here, just across the street. I suspect tourists read the internet and do not hear anything too positive about this place. Atmosphere: Sterile. Don't take credit cards. Food: This used to be some of the best food in town. It was the best burger in town until the Colonial Inn got its act together. Seems like the quality has gone downhill lately. Service: extremely fast but surly - service with a scowl.
Update: So we tried again a few weeks later at the Colonial Inn and the service was non-existent (worse than bad). We were seated and then left alone, with no menus, no water, no nibbles. After five minutes we decided we might do better in one of the other seating areas so we moved. Again: seated promptly then abandoned. After a few minutes we noticed there were more than 10 occupied tables, 1/2 of which had people with menus. One waiter put in a brief appearance. Five minutes later we walked out, commenting to the young man who seated us that: it is a no brainer that the waiters should be in the room with the customers are...not off "somewhere". So that is it for us. No more Colonial Inn. No more Helen's either, their burgers are no longer worth the scowl. Main Street Cafe is still viable but, so crowded, poor food, make it a second choice.
Why is service so miserable in Concord? They all hire high school students and, apparently, minimum wage does not require job training. Good lord! It would be so easy to do it right, why aren't there some decent managers? Advice to Main Street Cafe: get rid of some tables and don't be so greedy - improve your food quality. Advice to Helen's: enjoy your credit-card free zone. Advice to Colonial Inn: hire a decent restaurant manager who knows how to instill vigilance. I would be happy to train them.

The proto semantics of natural language and formal language cannot be equivalent

...because formal languages do not use implicit terms and implicit terms are the first application of proto semantics. Perhaps the semantics of explicit natural language is equivalent to that of formal language. But then that leaves out most of what is interesting in language.

A Google search for "language" and "mathematics" turns up many links to math being treated as a language but very few about using math to analyze natural language. The one I am looking at right now "The mathematics of Language" by Marcus Kracht assumes natural language and formal languages are equivalent.

May I be snarky in my own blog? When you assume natural language is equivalent to formal language you are really saying natural language is like math. I cannot see how anyone would confuse this with what is natural. You want to do math about math and call that language? Don't!

[What I mean: if you exclude language like "don't", you  miss out on an a great deal of what makes language interesting and makes language work.]

When Truisms 6N and 7 both apply

It seems there is a bit more in the way these truisms blend, than is in either one by itself.
Truism 6N: N([Z]),Z
Truism 7:   X* :: X

It seems to work something like this:

N([Z])* :: N(Z)

Not sure that is derivable from 6N and 7.

Update: I could break down and make the last a "variant" of T7. I think I am ready to commit myself to the rule:

[Z]*::Z

Jill is ready

"Jill is ready" is an expression mentioned frequently by D. Belleri. I think it has two forms: "Jill is ready for..." and "Jill is ready to...". These are written, respectively as:

([Z]->J)* 

and

(J->[Z])*

I like it when things turn out to be simple.
But there is a difference between this and "It is raining". For that, the 'place' of the rain may remain implicit and not important. But "Jane is ready" is a statement that is incomplete. That is because rather than relying on T6N, which does not create expectation, here we can rely on T7 to create an expectation. 
The nature of the implicit understanding is different for "Jill is ready" and for "It is raining". The former requires further information and the latter has optional further information. We might say that the former has no default value in the variable whereas the latter has default 'place'.
To restate: 

[place]_/raining 

has an implicit term and so it is subject to Truism 6N allowing optional explicitness. Whereas:

(J->[Z])* 

has an implicit term and a contrast and so it is subject to both Truism 6N and Truism 7. The latter requires appearance without contrast and that cannot happen without it becoming explicit. [This still feels a bit strange - like one of the Euclidean deductions that uses ideas outside that aren't in the axioms.]
Update:  We do need something more. How about: do not use of X::[Z]. I will be considered illegal for a explicit sub-narrative to become an implicit sub-narrative.

The ultimate joke?

X*::X*

Update: I heard a good one: "I'll never forget what's his name"
Update 2: It may sound crazy but I still get a chuckle every time I see this. I cannot tell if it is because the expression X*::X* is funny or because the idea that it should be funny is itself is hilarious.

"Best Model Classification" - published

Dig it, after ~30 years of no publications:

Peter Waksman, "Best Model Classification," Journal of Pattern Recognition Research, 
Vol 10, No 1 (2015); doi:10.13176/11.634

http://www.jprr.org/index.php/jprr/article/view/634

The proto semantic formula for IRONY

(X_/Y)*::X->Z, [Z::X_/Y] , Z::(X_/Y)*
or
(X_/Y)*::X->Z, [Z::X_/Y] , Z::(X_/Y*)

Simpler version: X* :: X*

Explanation:

X wants Y, which leads to X acting on Z:

(X_/Y)*::X->Z

This is followed by the implicit assumption that (usually) Z causes X_/Y:

[Z::X_/Y]

In this case ("but"?) Z causes something contrasting:

Z::(X_/Y)*
or
Z::(X_/Y*)

It is certainly fun to have a formula for irony. We note that Truism 7 is flouted because the narrative starts with a contrast and ends with the status quo  - the contrast is not relieved. But there is a problem with the relation to Truism 6 which says that the implicit [Z::X_/Y] can be followed by it becoming explicit. When something related (and contrasting) becomes explicit instead, this feels like a flouting of Truism 6 - which does not involve 'becoming' and should not be flout-able. Somehow the implicit 'becoming' creates an opportunity for flouting. 

There is something algebraic going on here, where the implicit term contains 'becoming', and so the word "BUT" makes sense in: We expect Z to cause X_/Y BUT it cause X_/Y*. I am going to close my eyes and go "la, la, la, la" and assume this will all work out. It is something along these lines: when the implicit becomes explicit and it is a 'becoming' statement, English allows us to put the "but" in front of the whole expression to be flouted, rather than in the middle of it.

This positions "IRONY" as the expectation of contrast where, instead, we get the status quo. Most simply: X*::X*. Note the joke version of the Start Spangled Banner:

Or maybe it should be X::X ("anti climax"?). In any case, this is the same general domains as Truism 7 and the use of "but". 

Update: Let me add that irony is another pattern that my mind reacts to (I keep chuckling at X*::X*), although I do not see it as a truism. I wonder if this is a signpost to a world of standardized responses to known narrative patterns or whether it is only for irony and truisms?

Update:  I have to get it straight:  You could develop an irony around any narrative of the form 'Z::X_/Y' whether it is a pure truism or a factoid. The "but" come because that truism, wherever it comes from, contains '::' and admits flouting.