In the scheme of communications, there is nothing like a demonstration of how bad it could be to compel an appreciation of how good it is. In that respect, I withdraw my harsh analogy of “going to h**l to cool off.”
I’ll replace it with, “coming here to learn grammar is like going for a swim in the magma of an active volcano to cool off.”
It requires a fair amount of skill to write something that outrageous and still be comprehensible. It’s a mad, mad, world!
Constable Grammar Numan
Note to kitty 3: My reference to your posts and language skills may have provoked an unwanted contrast. Sorry. Though the pen is mightier than the claw, it does not replace it. If necessary, extend claws and sharpen as required.
A subscripted postscript detected. …
--- And who the heck wurries about witch sintence contains a linked up verb??? There ain't no numbers in that, so WE DON'T CARE 'BOUT IT!!!! Let that linked up verb find itself, if'n its lost.......
… Redirect AI to M5 tie in, reinitialize informational input….evaluate as interrogative… sub-imperative… begin human readable transcription. ---
That was the point in the first place. This is the wrong forum for that question.
Because of the natural redundancy built into human communication, I could understand what you wrote. There may be a few computers that could –very few, at present. One need only look at the language translations sites to see the limitations of computers and their programming in this respect.
To program a computer to solve a math problem requires math and programming skills. To program a computer to correct syntax and grammar requires those two skill sets and at least one other. By logic, this is a more complicated procedure.
Nearly all of the math equations you write are resolvable by a computer. You would – I hate to say it -- have to use the correct syntax. The computer output would be in a form consistent with math syntax. You would understand this output because you understand this “grammar” of math.
For the most part, except for the human communication, Wolframalpha can replace you (irksome thought). That is, though the computer outputs a consistent mathematical grammar, most humans cannot understand it. Yet, these same humans can (maybe) understand even the most (intentionally) butchered human grammar, that you might use to explain it. Some do not even know it is butchered.
Ask a few elementary school students to find out if someone is “smart,” and invariably they will ask math questions. This is true for most adults, too. The concept: if you know math you are “smart.” No doubt, that is true, but it is very incomplete.
The programmers of the elementary students and computers need to use the proper syntax. Unlike the perpetual universal constancy of math, grammar is dynamic; it changes with time. However, if it changes too fast, the older computers will give a “syntax error” and the younger computers will not learn the older grammar, giving an error message: “that does not compute” or “W*F”.
If ye ask m’Lady, she must knowth this to be a truth.
This is a computational observation from the cyber world where chaos in communication is another branch of mathematics. Does this compute?
Dramatis personae: HAL, via M5 tie-in, Constable Grammar, Constable Grammar Numan, and ye olde M-1