<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body><><><><><><><><><><><><>--This is the Language List--<><><><><><><><><><><><><><BR>
<BR>
<br>
<br>
<pre wrap=""><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Nemonemini@aol.com">Nemonemini@aol.com</a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid20021023000325.1781.qmail@linguistlist.org">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I feel that I should make an attempt to respond to three emails of Mr.
Landon. But I will have<br>
to be brief because this is an extremely complex topic. However, for those
interested in<br>
related topics I will point out this reference:<br>
<br>
Hubey, H.M. "Evolution of Intelligence: Direct modeling....", Kybernetes,
Vol 31, No. 3/4, 2002.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid20021023000325.1781.qmail@linguistlist.org">
<pre wrap="">
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 22:09:07 EDT
From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Nemonemini@aol.com">Nemonemini@aol.com</a>
Subject: Re: 13.2704, Disc: Darwinism & Evolution of Lang
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Actually this is simply a matter of definition. It goes like this:
random + deterministic = random
random*deterministic = random
The former is "additive noise" and the latter "multiplicative noise",
and both are random. "Random" is not equal to "uniforrmly random",
thus one can find broadbrush patterns in random phenomena.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I recommend a good biography of Isaac Newton, when you start trying to
figure out both reality and the methodology with respect to reality at
the same time. You will discover that science as we know is monkey see
monkey do plus ingenious math tricks. </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I think I know a lot more about science than you imagine and I see no reason
to pursue this line. You are<br>
welcome to join the "Language" list and pursue your arguments there. To join,
send email to this address:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:majordomo@csam-lists.montclair.edu">majordomo@csam-lists.montclair.edu</a>, and in the body of the message put "subscribe
language" (without the<br>
quotes). <br>
<br>
What is randomness and what is deterministic is very clearly defined and
I wrote it above. No need<br>
for confusion. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid20021023000325.1781.qmail@linguistlist.org">
<pre wrap="">
-------------------------------- Message 2 -------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 23:43:49 EDT
From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Nemonemini@aol.com">Nemonemini@aol.com</a>
Subject: Re: 13.2721, Disc: Darwinism & Evolution of Lang
RE Linguist 13.2721
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I realize I have to expand what I wrote.
It is best explained via equations. Let f(t) be some function of time,
and r(t) be a random function of time. Then if y(t)= r(t)*f(t) and
x(t)=r(t)+f(t), both x(t), and y(t) are random processes. This is due
simply to definition of randomness. To apply directly to evolution,
let the "evolution" of something very simple be given by the equation
dz(t)/dt + a(t)*z(t) = f(t)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I will study this but I should say that.... </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid20021023000325.1781.qmail@linguistlist.org">
<pre wrap="">The flaw, to me, can be seen in the old edition of Hartl
on pop gen, where the 'force' is brought in relation to natural
selection. The problem is that natural selection is not a force, and
evolution is not physics, and the equations don't really explain
evolution. What is this 'force', i.e. what's our game in terms of
foundational concepts? We can't say until we have the facts. </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I explained all this. And soon I will be working on "population genetics"
models with a colleague whose<br>
specialty is dynamics (in fact, population dynamics) and we will be working
on language evolution.<br>
To add more, the partial differential equations for the pdf (prob density
function) of random processes<br>
are the so-called diffusion models, and I have already done work in this
field and understand it<br>
reasonably well. You can also read about them in both of these books:<br>
<br>
Hubey, H.M. 1999, Mathematical Foundations of Linguistics, Lincom Europa<br>
Hubey, H.M. 1994 Mathematical and Computational Linguistics, Mir Domu Tvoemu,
Moscow <br>
(this later published by Lincom Europa in 1999).<br>
<br>
Longer and more detailed versions of these books (with examples and exercises
suitable for<br>
teaching) will be eventually published.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid20021023000325.1781.qmail@linguistlist.org">
<pre wrap="">
Consider finally a puzzle. The pieces are scrambled, and seem
random. Then we see the relation of certain pieces to each other, and
solve a corner of the puzzle. Then we see the pieces cohere, and are
not random. Thus my usage is quite ordinary, and takes common sense
derivations. The term random is hardly a numerical issue at all. </pre>
</blockquote>
It can't be anything else. It is exactly because it is so difficult to explain
that so much precision and<br>
detail are needed. There are tons of mathematical materials on probability
theory, stochastic processes,<br>
plausible reasoning (See Jaynes' book), etc. It is a very rich field and
also very powerful. Today most of<br>
datamining, model-building, search for patterns, knowledge discovery are
all tied together within the<br>
view point of probability theory, namely Bayesian reasoning. See the book
by Hastie, Tibshirani, and<br>
Feldman for the last 30 years of research in this field.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid20021023000325.1781.qmail@linguistlist.org">
<pre wrap="">------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 08:02:18 EDT
From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Nemonemini@aol.com">Nemonemini@aol.com</a>
Subject: Re: 13.2721, Disc: Darwinism & Evolution of Lang
Re: Linguist 13.2721
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">It is best explained via equations. Let f(t) be some function of time,
and r(t) be a random function of time. Then if y(t)= r(t)*f(t) and
x(t)=r(t)+f(t), both x(t), and y(t) are random processes. This is due
simply to definition of randomness. To apply directly to evolution,
let the "evolution" of something very simple be given by the equation
dz(t)/dt + a(t)*z(t) = f(t)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
??? And? To rescue the idea of randomness here in this fashion seems
beside the point. </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Randomness needs no rescue. Perhaps those who do not understand it might
wish to be rescued.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid20021023000325.1781.qmail@linguistlist.org">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
---<><><><><><><><><><><><>----Language----<><><><><><><><><><><><><><BR>
Copyrights/"Fair Use": http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html<BR>
The "fair use" exemption to copyright law was created to allow things<BR>
such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education <BR>
about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's<BR>
important so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express<BR>
your own works -- only the ability to express other people's. <BR>
Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the work are <BR>
important considerations. <BR>
<BR>
You are currently subscribed to language as: language@listserv.linguistlist.org<BR>
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-language-4283Y@csam-lists.montclair.edu
</BODY>
</html>