Hi William,

Mono-dimensional as in a single dimension or line. Please allow me to explain...

Human languages are mono-dimensional because they must happen in line (one word precedes the next word, so on and so forth - words come in series or lines). The human biology does not allow humans to effectively mix and yet separate several parallel words or sounds at the same time (only one voice).

There is however other multi-dimensional ways to communicate (according to this model and its theory).

For example, the model we assembled uses tri-dimensional arrays or structures to represent the sounds of words from sentences

William,

Music is not a natural language. I am specifically dealing with grammars and languages such as English or Italian. Still, humans can not sign in different voices, but again, music is not part of languages per say

Dear Pedro,

Humans need to externalize Natural Languages mono-dimensionally simply because of their biological limitations. Specifically, the human larynges does not allow humans to produce two or more words simultaneously (there are only 2 vocal cords which together can only produce one sound per unit time).

Of course, this is not to say that "word lines" are the only means of communication. Pictures, drawings, gestures, even music, can be used as well; but specifically, languages have no other means to be externalized.

However, in the model that I mentioned above, communications of entire sentences can occur in one, two or even three dimensions.

So, universally speaking, languages do not need to be mono-dimensional, but human language, due to biological limitation, does.

I think I understand what you are asking. And please correct me if I am wrong again.

The Faculty of Language (according to the model we assembled) is not an entity, but rather a medium or an outcome to express/communicate concepts. How these concepts are to be expressed (mono-dimensionally, bi-dimensionally or other) is dictated by which mechanism is selected to communicate the said concepts (I guess we could call the mono-dimensional mechanism ...mono-dimensional, but in its entirety, it is really not purely mono-dimensional, only toward the end).

According to this model, there is a distributional limit when information is displayed in a single dimension (meaning, that there is no such thing as an infinite way to say things in line). In fact, we could create or implement bi-dimensional grammars if we so desired to send information. But what for me was a bit difficult to accept, is that within this model, languages and grammars have little to no value, but rather, it is the concepts who truly take center stage.

Consequentially, the sentence "Mary is tall and silly" is identical to "Mary, who is silly, is tall" and is also identical to "silly Mary is tall" and continues to be identical to all sentences saying the same thing whether they were written or mentioned in English, Spanish, German, etc.

In better words, concepts are absolutely universal, but how they may be displayed (specially in one dimension) is not or could not.

What theory are you following?

Dear William,

Let me exemplify what I was trying to say (or what this model is proving)

1) - that concepts (within the mind) are universal.

For example: "Mary is pretty" is equally understood by a English, German, Spanish and other speakers. Of course, the words and grammars are different, but the complex concept that "Mary is actually beautiful" remains identical to all speakers or is equally understood by all speakers.

2) - messages external to the mind (language) is not.

For example: the words and the order of "Mary is pretty" is different to "pretty Mary" (in the second sentence there is no word "is" and the "pretty" sits before "Mary" in contrast to the first sentence). These two sentences are also different to "Maria es bonita" which was said in Spanish.

The messages can change, even within a particular language, but the meanings of the message remain. In fact, I could have also alternated the word "pretty" with "beautiful" in the seocnd sentence. This would have change again the message, but the concept would remain identical.

Dear Eliana,

We assembled the mentioned model in view of a new theory of intellect. This follows directly within language because language is the means to express concepts (Language is the principal expressing mechanism of intellect).

We named this theory "Clustericism" because of how the information units cluster with each other and later begin to form structures, actual informational constructs within a major memory infrastructure.

I am hoping to attract one or several universities to bring this project as a corroboration effort (hopefully, internationally).

Language is only one portion, but without a doubt, an important and valued portion of the project (maybe, the most important portion).

I am still leaning toward mentioning this in the title of this discussion, but I believe this is not polite to ResearchGate

Pedro,

Linearization has to be accounted for (difficult or not), for linearization is the only means that concepts can escape the mind. And unfortunately to linguistics, language is the one stuck with that job.

Additionally, out of all the current theories of language out there, Chomsky is the one that has the closest proximity to this model. I do believe, that Chomsky is a right place to introduce this. After all, Chomsky's theories have change over time, and there is no reason for me to assume, that the current belief is or will remain final.

Dear Pedro,

I am sorry too, I just read my post and sounds terribly strong. My apologies.

Indeed, we are addressing the "intellectual" part, and we are spending very little time and effort in actually describing, writing or discriminating the different language forming portions of the model. This is what I was trying to say to Ms. Eliana above. This project is much too big and too important for just a handful of scientists.

Just in the language portion, I believe, we can generate dozens of new papers. Specifically those that can deal with the logical or implicative assemblage that all languages intend or use.

For example, Noam Chomsky..... What does grammar say of the noun Noam and the noun Chomsky when placed together from left to right? English Grammar says nothing about this. However, the logical-implicative spirit of the language tells us that there is a person whose name is Noam and Chomsky (maybe even first and last names). Another example of logical implication, ....president Obama..... again, English Grammar says nothing, but the logical-implicative part (that grammar barely touches) says that there is a person called Obama whose profession is president. These "implicative-logical" interactions is indeed what this model is mainly intended to handle. Not what was mentioned (the words), but what was said (the meanings).

What is terribly difficult for me when I have to speak or present this model, is that this model aggressively contradicts many theories and yet it can gently or swiftly modify many others. In the case of Chomskyan Linguistics, the modifications are vey subtle, even naive in some instances. I honestly do not think that this model trunks Chomsky. I think (if I can speak in comparison) that this model is the missing bullet in the gun. Yes, maybe the gun miscalculated the size of the bullet, the gun's barrel was too short or the cartridge too slow to deliver the bullets, etc, etc, etc. But one thing is certain, the gun and the bullet need to work in sync.

Dear Pedro,

I appreciate your comments, your interest and dedication.

In the field of Linguistics, the model proves or suggests some of the following:

1) The existence of a Universal Conceptual Construct (UCC)

2) An intimate and dependent relationship from Language to UCC but not the other way around

3) A Language-A to UCC mechanism, and a UCC to Language-A mechanism

4) Languages, Logic and Math all share the same foundation

5) Languages can be multi-dimensional

6) Grammar is innate to mono-dimensional communications (human language) but is not innate or need in multi-dimensional communications

7) Human languages, in general, may be used to depict the logical consistency/inconsistency of human intellect.

Hi, Frank,

I really enjoyed reading this thread, and I'm quite interested in understanding a bit better what you've disposed in the latter posts; do you have any publications on this model you've developed?

Thanks.

Dear Rubens,

My apologies for the late response (insanely busy).

I have not written any papers yet. We are in the process of filing the patents first (idiot attorneys of mine demand this from me first). However, once the fillings are completed, I will proceed to explain the architecture mentioned above.

I believe it will demonstrate, without a doubt, that 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional communications are true, even perfect; but most importantly, free of grammars.

We must not forget that human languages are bound to human biology and thus, to the mechanisms available (specifically the larynges) to communicate. This has forced, all human languages, to use grammars.... but this is not true to the abstract; meaning that there could be other species that could use other means to achieve complex communications, still using sound (for example, imagine a human with 2 larynges - he/she could say 2 words simultaneously and use this time relationship to exploit grammar like rules).

Hi Mona,

Unfortunately YES. What we have found (it is a discovery, it is not an invention) is that language and math and logic all share an identical operational framework.

I know this sounds horrific to some, frustanting to others, and to others (naturally) papers to explain this are needed before claims are presented.

I have been tremendously critized for this, and they are correct, I will soon present this papers.

In the meantime, imagine a sentence like "Mary called John" another "John was called by Mary" another: Maria llamo a Juan (Spanish), etc, etc, etc. If all these sentences are converted into this 3d contruct (all the sentences begin to look like molecules do); then their 3d-contructs are all identical. This means that indeed, as Noam Chomsky claims, there is a universal thing. The problem with our construct, is that in 3 dimensions, there is no grammar per say. Of course, we can say there is structure; but is a 3d structure a grammar? or maybe an illegal expansion of the meaning of grammar?

I was very fortunate to meet with Professor Chomsky. He called it "intriguing" but he disliked the "math" and "logical" part (he is too waiting for me to present the papers.... I feel shame). Another thing I think he did not appreciate is the 3D spirit of the animal, maybe because it is not a grammar?

Hi, Frank,

thanks for your reply on my post -- I, so far, hadn't really had time to read it carefully.

Reading that reply and these latter ones, there're still some couple of questions circling around my head:

- your design/model is able to "plot", in a 3-dimensional space, sentences/entities/objects, according to their meaning?

- how is it math, logical, and sentences would be, then, connected in a 3-dimensional structure; are they inserted by their meaning -- same meanings, same coordinates --, or do they represent different dimensions of the space?

- could you give an example of conversion of a sentence and a mathematical equation to a meaning/representation in your structure, in a shallow view?

As you said, you still have some judicial issues to settle down, and you haven't yet published any papers; so, if any of those questions requires a deeper understanding of the technique, which may can't be given at the time, I understand.

Regards!

Hi Mona,

I am sorry for my ignorance. I come from mathematics so I am unfamiliar with some terms in the Chomsky-linguistics. You mentioned 'TRACE'.... could you tell me what that is?

Thanks kindly

Hi Rubens,

I will re-post your questions so to better answer them....

- your design/model is able to "plot", in a 3-dimensional space, sentences/entities/objects, according to their meaning?

Yes. For example, in the case of a homonym such as 'german = language' and german = adjective relating to germany or its people' the way 'german' is introduced into the 3D strucutre depends on what it is... in better words, the noun fits in a different place that the adjectiv does. If the word german is a verb, and its dfinition (as a verb) does not axist in th dictionary of the system, then 'german' will not fit, except in the verb position, but it will be blank (the system does not have a menaing for german the verb). This also means that the structures are assembled using the SVO

- how is it math, logical, and sentences would be, then, connected in a 3-dimensional structure; are they inserted by their meaning -- same meanings, same coordinates --, or do they represent different dimensions of the space?

The math are equations that analize the particular elements within the string of words.... then based on the meaning and/or grammatical type, the equation places-allocates the element within each structure

- could you give an example of conversion of a sentence and a mathematical equation to a meaning/representation in your structure, in a shallow view?

I will give you a very shallow example, (I am sorry, I have to wait for patent applications to finish up). the sentence "Mary called John" becomes a molecule-like thing including 3 spheres connecting with each other (forming the molecule). John was called by Mary creates a molecule in different direction, but in 3D, there is no direction (up, down, front, back no longer exist). Hence both prior sentences become identical (that is identical in the 3D strucutre, not the sentences, they remain in line)

Does that help?

thanks

Thanks, Frank,

your explanation really helped. The only one left question, which is rather an experimental issue other than a conceptual question, is how costly is the apparatus you are a using to do the experiments.

By costly I mean, how does the time required for extraction of meanings from sentences/equations/statements grows with the increasing amount of data to be analysed?

Regards!

Your are most welcome Rubens,

We are running this program from a basic 8MB 2.3G Hz server (this is basically almost a standard computer) We do not need super computers (like IBM Watson - a 2.3 billion dollar project) to perform the processes.

More interestingly (fro computer science) is that the new phenomena known as "BIG DATA" it does not exist in the propose UG+C architecture. Information conects, is not broken.... words ar not just words, they are all part of other words and vice versa. There is no knowledge that sits idle (if it can connect with others).

From its very beginning, I knew this will be an immensly controversial issue, so instead or writting papers I had to move step further.... that is... we had to build the darn stupid thing.

So in retrospect, I can offer more than just papers, I can offer a functional system (from where we can write many, many, many papers) and we can push the idea of a Universal Grammar-Conceptual Infrastructure + new computational architecture for miles and miles ahead.

Is this sound crazy? Of course it does.... But please allow me to say that ....I am its biggest critic

Hi, Frank,

haha, that's quite an amazing trip this of yours (:

I'm waiting anxiously to see some of your results, and I hope I'm able to apply some of them in my projects and studies.

Once it does work, it'll definitely be an unfathomable data compressor -- besides all the other applications it shall have; if any news, don't forget to post some pointers! (:

Best!

Frank,

Math and deductive logic are certainly parallel if not actually the same thing. They are "easy" to conceptualize to be computable. Their meaning is compositional, as you say. Whatever you find in an expression can be broken down into parts that have meaning, and by adding up the meaning, you know what the whole means.

Language, however, deals with both deductive and more often inductive logic, and I think it is optimistic to have confidence in conceptualizing the computability of inductive logic. If I am right, then computing natural language is going to be more of a project than you imagined. For instance, everyone should agree that the proposition "All dogs have four legs" is false. It only requires one case to make it false, and a quick trip to YouTube to that dog with a birth defect having no front legs hopping around on its hind legs "proves" the case. On the other hand, the proposition "Dogs have four legs" is true because it does not have quantification and is not intended to be a deductive proposition. (In my philosophy training, I found that logicians struggle with this idea, but an informal poll shows universal approval of language users without the logicians included.) The truth of the proposition is found in finding lots of cases and concluding that characteristically, it is the case that dogs have four legs; they are engineered that way. One--or even several counter-examples do not change the truth value of the proposition. So before you convince Chomsky, et al., that logic is just like language, you need to convince him that you can handle inductive as well as deductive logic. He may require more than that, but it is a start.

Frank,

I wrote this separately because it is a separate area of concern, although hinted at in the first response.

Natural language is not compositional--sometimes. That is, one cannot just delimit parts of the speech signal, say into words, and by understanding the words be able to add them all up and understand the whole. And sometimes you can. So like a human parser, the computer is going to have to project more than one interpretation of the speech signal until it can decide which interpretation was intended by the message sender.

In parts of Spain and Mexico (and maybe some other places), the group of words "pelar el ajo" means "to die." A word-by-word interpretation is "to-peel the garlic.' So the same internalized message by an individual needs to be able to produce the Spanish version as well as the English version (as you say) as well as "kick the bucket," an English idiom meaning the same. So when parsing such a sentence, it is necessary to build two possible meanings for the sentence until some clue comes along to decide which was the intended meaning, the literal meaning or the figurative meaning. How will you clue in the computer?

It can become more of a problem. In the movie Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World, a character falls to the ground, hits a pail with his foot and then expires. If you don't get the idea of BOTH readings of the sentence "He kicked the bucket," then you miss the intended joke. If slapstick is not your thing, then try reading Shakespeare's Sonnet 138. If you don't read BOTH meanings of "I lie with her and she with me," then I think you do not get the message. How does this square with your one-dimensional natural language notion? I propose that there is not a one-to-one correspondence between sentences and meanings such as there is with logic and math.

Dear Glenn,

Words, in all languages, are merely identifying concepts, they are not the concepts themselves. This is what happens whith Homonyms and the reason why "duck" (a homonym) in a given context means an animal, and in another context it can be an action (a verb). I like your example "pelar el ajo" since all words can relate to their original meanings, but when together in a given order, they can also imply another meaning. When together, "pelar el ajo" has 2 now meanings, a) the words separately - by which someone is peeling the garlic" and b) to die - what you just taught me.

I have another example: "red shoes" - the movie - and "red shoes" - shoes that are red. This is identical to the above and to many other collocations (if can call them that).

However, how these group of words relate to one another, as individual words or a group or words, does have a intrinsic and undeniable type of logic; hence the reason, once taught, I can understand the newly adopted meanings (as least to me).

Interestingly, if nobody teaches me that "red shoes" is a movie and I am told to buy "red shoes" I will never challenge the meaning, and I will simply buy shoes which are red.