--- In cybalist@..., "richardwordingham" <richard.wordingham@...>
wrote:
d see if there is any rational basis to these
> > papers.
> > Do the mathematical concepts make any sense?.
>
> No.
>
> No. There are 230 3-D symmetry groups
> (http://www.iucr.org/iucr-
top/comm/cteach/pamphlets/21/node4.html).
>
> 230 <> 17 x 17.
> Can we set up sensible features to get the following grid?
>
> k kh g gh ng h. h a
> c ch j jh n~ s' y i
> t. t.h d. d.h n. s. r r.
> t th d dh n s l l.
> p ph b bh m w u
>
> I can't see any useful way of fitting in m. e o ai au.
>
> Richard.
My reasons for posting the abstract, on this technical linguistic
list, was that here is someone attempting to explain a language
construct with a mathematical model. which in itself is admittedly
not a very common approach. I am hoping that some with more knowledge
than I have, could analyze , criticize, and develop the subject
further.
Mr Wordingham, rightly, applies his critical faculties, to the model,
and raises some issues, with examples from other languages, and the
English language for example has 23, 24, 25, or 26 characters( from
a mathematical perspective, we now have a model, with a range of
variables from 23 to 26 this is a mathematical model, albeit a
rudimentary one).
That forms the basis of a scientific discussion, and I hope others
will be expand on his comments, and develop the hypothesis further.
Sanskrit, if I understood right, is a structured, indeed, some think
an artificial language. Could the rules, not be analogical to
mathematical rules? The grammarian Panini's, works have been studied,
and some have proposed that here was a pre runner to today's database
systems, indexing, and the strings that are used in computer
programming.
Structures require rules. Structures lend themselves to mathematical
models. If languages have structures, there is then nothing, from a
conceptual basis, that says that mathematical modeling techniques
cannot be applied.
Mr Wordingham is also right in not applying one standard to other
papers on the waves list, over 120, covering a vast range of
subjects, from Philosophy, archeology medicine, the epics, culture
and so on.
As for the paper itself, what is available is just an abstract. Maybe
the author has some rational basis, for his concepts. The author may
also be totally wrong.
With the information available, we just do not know.
Again, I suggest, Richard could contact, the author, his address is
available, obtain the paper, and give us the benefit of his
considered analysis.
Ravi