Hypocrisy

[StringJunky]

I would hope that we as a moderator team would be open to changes to rules and we do change our interpretation of them based on what the rest of the membership tell us.

No problem there, the mods and members are, it seems, in constant dialogue and angst about how this place is run. If even half the the things were true that people say about this site were true I wouldn't be here. I'm not afraid to speak my mind and will, no matter the upset it might cause, but have not seen any endemic, persistent problems with the management of this site since 2009 when I started here. Yes, there is the odd "Ouch!" moment when things could have been handled better but, hey, C'est la vie and you are, after all, volunteers. What matters is the spirit and intent of the site's owners and the mods; it's sound imo.

Edited January 4, 2017 by StringJunky

[CharonY]

I'm not too familiar with the subject of the OP, having been away for a while, however I find some of the comments made by members that I respect, somewhat troubling. The comment " if you don't like the rules here, you are free to leave", has been made by at least three members who should know better. It is reminiscent of the 60s counter-protest " America, love it or leave it".

Is there no scope or room for improvements to Science Forums ?

And does wanting to improve it deserve banishment from this forum ?

( not that I'm implying the OP is trying to improve the forum ( having only skimmed through the previous 3 pages), but improvement by constructive criticism )

 

This forum is not great in and of itself, it is made great by the membership AND moderation.

The fact that this thread has gone on this long seems to prove we're not close-minded, and will entertain constructive criticism.

 

I think the "feel free to leave" comment is often used when someone claims infringement on free speech. It is given as a counterpoint to establish that this is a private site rather than a federal forum. What is asked for is adherence to the rules, which have been established to have this site not decay into a conspiracy whacko discussion site, of which there are plenty.

And as String said, the Mods are usually open to discuss necessary changes and act in good faith.

[DrKrettin]

I'm familiar with a few internet forums, and they all have the common trait that now and again a member feels badly treated by one or more moderators and devotes his/her** time to a ridiculously long thread about how unfair it all is. An internet forum is necessarily a tyranny, not a democracy, because the reality is that a member has the choice of either accepting the rules or going somewhere else. It's that simple. I've seen the alternative, where members are given free rein, and the result is anarchy.

 

** Come to think of it, it's always "his".

[Ophiolite]

Yes, the option to leave when one feels that concerns are not properly recognised and addressed, where transparency is not what it could be, is a real option. One wonders how many potentially valuable members we may have lost as a consequence. Members to whom the remark "if you don't like it you can leave" was not even addressed.

[StringJunky]

The biggest error new members, with an idea they come up with, make is not familiarising themselves with the territory i.e. forum first before presenting their idea. If I came up with an idea, I know what to expect and what is expected of me because I've been here a while.

[swansont]

I'm not too familiar with the subject of the OP, having been away for a while, however I find some of the comments made by members that I respect, somewhat troubling. The comment " if you don't like the rules here, you are free to leave", has been made by at least three members who should know better. It is reminiscent of the 60s counter-protest " America, love it or leave it".

Is there no scope or room for improvements to Science Forums ?

And does wanting to improve it deserve banishment from this forum ?

The first question is a legitimate inquiry. But it's quite a leap to get to the second. Who has proposed that banishment is under consideration? What was suggested was about the choice to come here, if it's so horribly run (in someone's opinion). If you go to a restaurant and the food is bad and expensive, and the service is horrible, one might ask why you keep going back. That's quite different from suggesting that you're being thrown out.

I'm familiar with a few internet forums, and they all have the common trait that now and again a member feels badly treated by one or more moderators and devotes his/her** time to a ridiculously long thread about how unfair it all is. An internet forum is necessarily a tyranny, not a democracy, because the reality is that a member has the choice of either accepting the rules or going somewhere else. It's that simple. I've seen the alternative, where members are given free rein, and the result is anarchy.

 

** Come to think of it, it's always "his".

 

That's an excellent point. Unmoderated forums are generally cesspits of the internet.

 

Moderation means a set of rules, and the moderators enforce the rules to the best of their ability. We don't always agree, and when that happens we have a discussion (which is why some moderation actions take a little longer than others). There are a few cases where a moderator can ban or suspend on their own (e.g. spammers, sockpuppets), but in most cases it takes agreement by another mod or mods. Other actions are similar — obvious rules violations don't require discussion, but other ones do. You may see the actions of one mod, but what you don't see is the negotiation and eventual agreement of a few others on that action.

[Klaynos]

Sometimes this is shown in the actions that are taken. If a mod thinks to reduce further rule violation some urgent action is taken you might see a thread closed for review and then another mod reopen it after discussion it's not a close/open fight. This sometimes happens for suspension where there are enough mods online to agree a suspension but not enough to agree (or not) a ban.

 

I would hope we're rarely acting without the support and review of the other mods. Often we'll report our own modnote to ensure wider review.

No problem there, the mods and members are, it seems, in constant dialogue and angst about how this place is run. If even half the the things were true that people say about this site were true I wouldn't be here. I'm not afraid to speak my mind and will, no matter the upset it might cause, but have not seen any endemic, persistent problems with the management of this site since 2009 when I started here. Yes, there is the odd "Ouch!" moment when things could have been handled better but, hey, C'est la vie and you are, after all, volunteers. What matters is the spirit and intent of the site's owners and the mods; it's sound imo.

Thank you.

[Ten oz]

I would hope that we as a moderator team would be open to changes to rules and we do change our interpretation of them based on what the rest of the membership tell us.

I think the Mods here do a good job. Comments I have made in this thread are not directed at this forum broadly but rather the individual arguments presented.

 

 

I think the "feel free to leave" comment is often used when someone claims infringement on free speech. It is given as a counterpoint to establish that this is a private site rather than a federal forum. What is asked for is adherence to the rules, which have been established to have this site not decay into a conspiracy whacko discussion site, of which there are plenty.

And as String said, the Mods are usually open to discuss necessary changes and act in good faith.

At the same time, unfortunately, whacko conspiracy does need to be confronted. If someone legitimately doesn't understand climate science (easy to understand how when even the President of the United States denies it) members having the patience to explain can be valuable. Obviously it is balance. The whole site can't just be posters claiming Alien lizard people are taking over.

 

I'm familiar with a few internet forums, and they all have the common trait that now and again a member feels badly treated by one or more moderators and devotes his/her** time to a ridiculously long thread about how unfair it all is. An internet forum is necessarily a tyranny, not a democracy, because the reality is that a member has the choice of either accepting the rules or going somewhere else. It's that simple. I've seen the alternative, where members are given free rein, and the result is anarchy.

 

** Come to think of it, it's always "his".

I have been on other forums where the mods have yielded to complaints and loosened up on the rules, it doesn't work. There are always a number of posters who are entertained by insults and contraian remarks who take over discussion and harass away posters. Last man standing syndrone. I have seen forums go from hundreds of members down to a dozen in the span of months as legit discussion is replaced by sarcasm and personal attacks.

 

Temporary bans, moving threads, and etc in my opinion is the best way to deal with those who violate the rules because it teaches those posters to follow the rules and over time those contraians have the chance to become housebroken.

[swansont]

I think you have to acknowledge that there will never be a system where everyone is happy. Some goals you might have are mutually exclusive to other goals, so it's a compromise.

 

I think the "feel free to leave" comment is often used when someone claims infringement on free speech. It is given as a counterpoint to establish that this is a private site rather than a federal forum.

 

I think there are two parts to this. "Free to go start your own site" and "free to leave" are different responses. The former is a matter of free speech — you can stand on your own soapbox and talk about whatever you want, but we don't have to give you that soapbox. Enforcing our rules is not infringing anyone's right to free speech. The latter is directed at a more general complaint about how the site is run, separate from free speech. If you don't like it, you can shop for a better fit for your tastes.

 

I think that trying to please everyone is a fool's errand and (as noted above) impossible to achieve. So while suggesting changes is fine, consider that it's unlikely that they will be adopted. You have to make a string case for it — axe-grinding does not qualify — and consider the ramifications. (Making mods devote more time to moderating is a common deal-breaker)

[StringJunky]

 

I think that trying to please everyone is a fool's errand and (as noted above) impossible to achieve. So while suggesting changes is fine, consider that it's unlikely that they will be adopted. You have to make a string case for it — axe-grinding does not qualify — and consider the ramifications. (Making mods devote more time to moderating is a common deal-breaker)

"This is my stall and this is what I'm offering".

[proximity1]

This superscript added subsequent to the following below the line :

 

At first, I hadn't read the original post from Tom O'Neil on the Voynich Manuscript so I wasn't at first aware that it had been proposed that he discuss it differently, refraining from certain unallowed aspects--off-site linked references which the reader needs to study in order to have the needed background, etc. So, an early impression of mine was that it was the topic itself, the Voynich Manuscript, which had been deemed unfit for any discussion anywhere on the site, and not simply O'Neil's way of going about discussing it. Then, later, it became unclear to me whether what is primarily objected to is that his "theory" doesn't sound plausible or, again, whether the problem was its having been placed in the "puzzles and games" thread. And I'm still in doubt on this point. I gather it was mainly how he went about trying to discuss this topic rather than the VM itself. But since at least one member referred to O'Neil's effort amounting to "crackpottery", it leaves open the suggestion that whatever any moderator regards as that can be struck off at the first objection to it. This aspect remains completely unclear to me.

 

 

 

______________________

 

For starters, I'd recognize that as the site sets out specific science fields for topical discussion, this is clearly an indication that discussions “belong” in certain areas and not in other inappropriate areas. Fair enough. Then, you also more than strongly imply that there are still other areas where “non-science” matters are and may properly be discussed: Religion; philosophy; “Ethics”—which many philosphers consider a branch of philosophy—even gets its own discussion heading; politics; and, then, again, by implication, there's what's called “The Lounge” and seems to have been created for what could be called “everything else” since it is expressly described as being for “anything.” You should expect that this term is interpreted liberally by many people to include all their favorite topics beyond the realm of science since that is a completely normal way to interpret “anything.”

 

So, I think you are inviting confusion by leaving that term unqualified. You could, for example, put a prominent hyper-link asterisk on it “everything*” which directs readers to a clear list of topics which are proscribed from any, even what you call “civil” discussion. If you don't want pseudo-science discussed anywhere on the site under any circumstances, I can well understand that—and you could begin your list with all the currently popular pseudo-sciences and then append everything else, topic by topic which concern issues which are categorically not welcome to be opened for discussion here, even non-scientific discussion in non-scientific threads. Writing up and posting such a list wouldn't take very long. And then all you'd have to do is keep it current by adding those topics which weren't already on the list as they appear from members who have mistakenly supposed them acceptable for discussion. There'd always be that eventuality, of course.

 

That done, in the management's and a moderator's place, I'd take a very much greater attitude of leniency than is now done toward all non-science discussions which otherwise follow the guidelines by keeping away from science threads. True, this would allow a member to expose his or her favorite non-science theories about many things, including, for example, the Voynich Manuscript, if so inclined. He or she needn't be held to the rigors of a science thread's discussion standards when engaging in a non-science topic. The majesty of Science and the dignity of thois site could, I believe, easily bear these burdens without any serious or lasting harm done. It would reflect well on the site's management for its indication of a robust confidence in the stability of Science and the site to allow these sometimes silly discussions to take place without having a panic attack over it.

 

Failing such an asterisk-referenced list of what's set out clearly as not allowed, you could

 

a) just drop the otherwise misleading mention of “anything” in the description of what is welcome for discussion in The Lounge

and, instead, b) you could notify members that they must first request approval for their topics before posting them in the lounge—and any other threads where you find you routinely have to police conduct in order to keep out discussions the management deems unacceptable.

 

------------------

 

Allow me to append some specific examples of my objections to what appears above--

 

Here, for example : http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/100414-100-proof-that-the-vms-is-in-a-number-system-f49v/#entry953830 John Cuthbert writes, (as a reply to O'Neil's "First off, I believe that the Voynich Manuscript is a cipher, but not in natural language form (meaning the glyph’s are not arranged as so). I truly believe there is text, a book or books that were used to produce the manuscript, but in the art of numbers.")

 

"Science doesn't care what you believe, it cares what you can provide evidence for."

 

This was posted in The Lounge. Who has even maintained that what's under discussion here is a topic of science in the first place? I have not read that O'Neil maintains that this is a matter of science. The post was in the Lounge, for crying out loud. So what relevance does this hostile reply, "Science doesn't care what you believe, it cares what you can provide evidence for" have in this instance?

 

Let me suggest one: it's the relevance of an in-group member lording it over someone clearly not regarded as one of the group. The comment was gratuitously petty and hostile, directed at a comment in The Lounge, a thread reasonable to be thought of as "safe" for such a topic as this.

 

----------------

 

Another example from the same thread in the Lounge, we have Klynos responding with this:

 

 

Klaynos

• Moderators
• 
• 8,222 posts

Posted 5 November 2016 - 04:25 PM

!

Moderator Note

What part of do not reintroduce this topic did you not understand.

Don't do it again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, allow me to suggest one:

 

The part where a topic is thought to have been rejected as a consequence of its having been first sited in an inappropriate thread and where a placement in a different and appropriate thread might have been quite acceptable--

 

especially since PhiForAll had already, if I recall correctly, suggested that the thread better belonged in The Lounge. Well, that's where this was. So perhaps it had not been understood that moving to The Lounge does not and would not rectify the problem here. O'Neil's own reply suggests that as a likely explanation since he presents his exposition of his theory as though the problem is merely that it had not been received and considered. That's in November. Still, nothing is clearly stated as to the nature of the fault. This IS NOT a science topic. It's the Voynich Manuscript. Yet, in the Lounge, O'Neil is being subjected to what I call hostile harrassment simply because he isn't meeting some other members' ideas of scientific rigor in his theory. Instead of expressly explaining that, he's simply rebuked again for having reintroduced the topic. But as he may have seen it, he corrected his mistake by re-posting in a non-science thread.

 

----------------------

 

Next, in December, we find he makes an attempt in the brain-teasers and puzzles thread and if the VM is anything, it's a puzzle and a hell of a brain teaser. He gets the following from Swansont :

 

 

swansont

!

Moderator Note

You were told not to re-introduce this. Peddle your wares elsewhere.

 

 

 

 

--------

 

Even if we discount as impossible the idea that O'Neil had not understood that his topic was unacceptable because his theory was regarded as hopelessly implausible and not clearly explained, I really see no reason to address him in such condescending terms "You were told...! Peddle your wares...!"

 

Seriously?! I cringe when I see this sort of thing. I don't see why that petty lecturing tone is really necessary.

 

Instead, without the overwrought melodrama, a simple statement, "Per a previous instruction:..." with a hyper-link to the first discussion--where are found (one can hope) a clear discussion and reasoned explanation for what was wrong and why.

 

Judge-like lectures from the bench are unbecoming a science site. It makes this place look hysterical and intolerant when very simple and undramatic terms are all that are needed.

Edited January 4, 2017 by proximity1

[Phi for All]

You're really the only person arguing that the Lounge is unfairly misleading. I don't find your arguments compelling enough to change it based on this instance, since the intent of the Lounge isn't that often misinterpreted.

 

We will ABSOLUTELY NOT "take a very much greater attitude of leniency" towards any discussion. Even in the non-science areas like Politics, Religion, and the Lounge, we want critical thinking throughout. We want a higher standard. Honestly, this site has more value to science-minded people if we maintain MORE rigor rather than less.

 

I think you need to ask yourself about what you value in science. If it's the wild-ass guesswork you're defending, then there are places on the web that will make you very happy. If you don't enjoy discussions that require reasoned, rational arguments, that don't allow people to make assertions they can't support, then we'll never make you happy. We'd like you to stay but we aren't going to start letting people do whatever they want in the Lounge. Most members understand that.

[proximity1]

Editing query: Would someone please explain what the following means?:

 

"You are not allowed to use that image extension on this community."

 

what's an "image extension"

 

--- I think I figured it out. An image had been included in a cut-and-paste. Removing the image cleared up the issue.

Edited January 4, 2017 by proximity1

[swansont]

This superscript added subsequent to the following below the line :

 

At first, I hadn't read the original post from Tom O'Neil on the Voynich Manuscript so I wasn't at first aware that it had been proposed that he discuss it differently, refraining from certain unallowed aspects--off-site linked references which the reader needs to study in order to have the needed background, etc. So, an early impression of mine was that it was the topic itself, the Voynich Manuscript, which had been deemed unfit for any discussion anywhere on the site, and not simply O'Neil's way of going about discussing it. Then, later, it became unclear to me whether what is primarily objected to is that his "theory" doesn't sound plausible or, again, whether the problem was its having been placed in the "puzzles and games" thread. And I'm still in doubt on this point. I gather it was mainly how he went about trying to discuss this topic rather than the VM itself. But since at least one member referred to O'Neil's effort amounting to "crackpottery", it leaves open the suggestion that whatever any moderator regards as that can be struck off at the first objection to it. This aspect remains completely unclear to me.

 

 

 

IOW, you hadn't done any investigation at all into the situation, and yet you were convinced it was because of bias. And you doubled down on this.

 

Doesn't speak much to your credibility, IMO.

 

For starters, I'd recognize that as the site sets out specific science fields for topical discussion, this is clearly an indication that discussions “belong” in certain areas and not in other inappropriate areas. Fair enough. Then, you also more than strongly imply that there are still other areas where “non-science” matters are and may properly be discussed: Religion; philosophy; “Ethics”—which many philosphers consider a branch of philosophy—even gets its own discussion heading; politics; and, then, again, by implication, there's what's called “The Lounge” and seems to have been created for what could be called “everything else” since it is expressly described as being for “anything.” You should expect that this term is interpreted liberally by many people to include all their favorite topics beyond the realm of science since that is a completely normal way to interpret “anything.”

 

So, I think you are inviting confusion by leaving that term unqualified.

 

As Phi has noted, you seem to be in a very small minority here. It doesn't seem that a reasonable person would interpret it to mean there's a loophole in what can be discussed on the site since it rarely comes up.

[proximity1]

>87 : "Even in the non-science areas like Politics, Religion, and the Lounge, we want critical thinking throughout."

 

In that case, I think these are the explanatory terms which ought to be appended to The Lounge--with Exclamation mark to drive the point home.

 

Instead of "Discuss life, work, school, anything!" you could put it this way,

 

"Discuss life, work, school, 'anything,'BUT REMEMBER: we want critical thinking throughout !"

 

give the poor punters a chance.

 

RE :

 

"I think you need to ask yourself about what you value in science."

 

 

As much as anything else, I value science for the collegiality--not only beween scientists as fellow professionals but also between all those who esteem science as a pursuit for the good it _can_ produce. I value it for its robust character. It's sturdy and not some poor shrinking fragile thing--as one might suppose from the over-the-top reactions to some who tread off the reservation in their theorizing. I value it for the toleration it enbues in its best practitioners. I lament that in certain others, it incites a cult-like sectarianism which reminds me more of Scientology than of science.

 

"If it's the wild-ass guesswork you're defending, then there are places on the web that will make you very happy. If you don't enjoy discussions that require reasoned, rational arguments, that don't allow people to make assertions they can't support, then we'll never make you happy. We'd like you to stay but we aren't going to start letting people do whatever they want in the Lounge. Most members understand that."

 

Far, far, from "not enjoying" these, I do indeed enjoy and value them. It's just that I also value other things, too, and I see little or no serious danger to real science or professional scientists from lay people's "wild-ass guess-work" even in sites such as this one.

 

_________________

 

"A mathematician’s work is mostly a tangle of guesswork, analogy, wishful thinking and frustration, and proof, far from being the core of discovery, is more often than not a way of making sure that our minds are not playing tricks."

— Gian-Carlo Rota

In Rota's 'Introduction' written (1980) to preface Philip J. Davis and Reuben Hersh, The Mathematical Experience (1981, 2012), xxii.

 

 

"Mathematics is not a deductive science—that's a cliché. When you try to prove a theorem, you don't just list the hypotheses, and then start to reason. What you do is trial and error, experiment and guesswork."

— Paul R. Halmos

I Want to be a Mathematician: an Automathography in Three Parts (1985), 321.

Edited January 4, 2017 by proximity1

[swansont]

 

Even if we discount as impossible the idea that O'Neil had not understood that his topic was unacceptable because his theory was regarded as hopelessly implausible and not clearly explained, I really see no reason to address him in such condescending terms "You were told...! Peddle your wares...!"

 

Seriously?! I cringe when I see this sort of thing. I don't see why that petty lecturing tone is really necessary.

 

Instead, without the overwrought melodrama, a simple statement, "Per a previous instruction:..." with a hyper-link to the first discussion--where are found (one can hope) a clear discussion and reasoned explanation for what was wrong and why.

 

Judge-like lectures from the bench are unbecoming a science site. It makes this place look hysterical and intolerant when very simple and undramatic terms are all that are needed.

 

You are entitled to your opinion, just as others are entitled to disagree. I tend to become more abrupt as infractions continue; my patience wears thin when people keep violating the same rules. At first you ask that the improper behavior stop. But if that hasn't worked, you need to make a stronger statement.

 

I don't see a need for a hyperlink. If they person involved is not aware of their posting history, and previous modnotes and multiple warnings directed at them there are a number of other problems in play. Pleading ignorance is a ship that had sailed long before. It seems you want this for your own purposes, not that of the other party.

[Klaynos]

>87 : "Even in the non-science areas like Politics, Religion, and the Lounge, we want critical thinking throughout."

 

In that case, I think these are the explanatory terms which ought to be appended to The Lounge--with Exclamation mark to drive the point home.

 

Instead of "Discuss life, work, school, anything!" you could put it this way,

 

"Discuss life, work, school, 'anything,'BUT REMEMBER: we want critical thinking throughout !"

 

 

My view is that this is covered by section 1 of the rules. Do we need to remind everyone to constantly reread the rules?

[Phi for All]

Far, far, from "not enjoying" these, I do indeed enjoy and value them. It's just that I also value other things, too, and I see little or no serious danger to real science or professional scientists from lay people's "wild-ass guess-work" even in sites such as this one.

 

I think I see the problem here. You obviously think we're trying to protect "science" with our rules. We're not. We're trying to NOT waste member's time with WAGs and unsupported hand-waving.

 

You're making the same mistake many anti-environmentalists make. It's not the world we're trying to save, it's our own environment. The world will be just fine, and science will endure. The mods are here to help ensure there's more signal than noise in your science discussion experience.

[proximity1]

@ 87 & 89 :

 

 

 

"You're really the only person arguing that the Lounge is unfairly misleading."

 

 

The only one arguing the point--but I think you've leapt from that fact to the supposition that I'm also the only one who does or ever has _thought_ so.

 

 

 

Had it not been for Tom O' Neil's posting about his "wild-ass guess work," I think it's a virtual certainty that I'd have needed far longer before I stumbled upon the fascinating thing called the Marpra parser. I only wish I understood programming so I could better appreciate this thing :

 

 

from :

 

https://irclog.perlgeek.de/marpa/2015-01-07

 

Perl 6 - the future is here, just unevenly distributed

IRC log for #marpa, 2015-01-07

 

← Previous day | Channels | #marpa index | Today | Next day → | Search | Google Search | Plain-Text | summary

 

All times shown according to UTC.

Turn on filtering by nick Enable summary mode

Time Nick Message

2 more elements. Show/hide.

00:12 jeffreykegler re AFL: perhaps it's just something we should keep in mind.

00:15 Note that the Earley sets in Libmarpa are a large, complex "compact data format" -- the major difference between Libmarpa's internal data and a bytecode would be that it represents potential parses, rather than a sequence of instructions.

01:32 My doings:

01:33 Over the past few days I've caught up with various backlogs -- the recent developer's release of Marpa::R2 is one result.

01:33 Now I'm back to working on the document describing the partial parses technique. It's taking a bit of time ...

01:34 not because there are actual problems with the technique, but because I want to document *why* the algorithm is correct, ...

01:34 which means proofs.

01:35 Not of everything, but definitely of those things which are of the sort where I say to myself, "I know this is true, but I can't remember why".

01:35 So I write up the "why?" and that in high falutin't terms is what's called a proof.

01:36 * falutin't -> falutin'

01:38 Another part of this is coming up with terminology, and I plan to borrow some from biology -- the partial parses use special lexemes and non-terminals to match up at the edges ...

01:38 and I will call these special symbols "nucleobases" and "nucleotides" by analogy with DNA ...

01:40 My method for putting the partial parse trees together can be thought of as kind of like DNA replication ...

01:41 A left edge has symbols (nucleotides) and these are matched to symbols to create a right edge and to "transcribe" the left edge of the old parse into the right edge of the new one.

01:42 Once both parses exist, the nucleotide symbols are matched up, and used to join the two parses together.

01:42 Anyway, going back to writing that up is what I'm doing at the moment.

3 more elements. Show/hide.

06:41 ronsavage Now, I'm going to play with a proof-of-concept grammar for POD.

4 more elements. Show/hide.

 

★★★

15:50 jeffreykegler ronsavage: Between you and Jean-Damien we should soon have a Marpa-driven parse of the Voynich manuscript.

3 more elements. Show/hide.

18:09 jeffreykegler A question on perlmonks: "Parsing a config file with braces and nested braces -- http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=1112435

18:24 Continuing the DNA analogy, I may rename what I've been calling several things, including "partial parsing" and "constant space parsing".

18:25 I am thinking of calling it "strand parsing", on the idea that the partial trees are "strands" which the technique "transcribes" and joins together.

18:27 The DNA analogy has the disadvantage of importing a few high-falutin' biochemical, which could be seen as pretentious, ...

18:28 but I think it may have a real advantage -- many people intuitively the idea of the DNA code, and DNA spliting, joining and transcription ...

18:28 and it supplies a "mental picture" into which the details of my algorithm can fit.

2 more elements. Show/hide.

19:56 ronsavage Ah, yes, 'the Voynich manuscript'. I wrote a Marpa parser for that, but stored it in /tmp, and lost when I re-booted. Hahaha.

★★★

 

 

19:58 As for the DNA connexion. I'm thinking your plan more resembles a zipper, and regrettably, many people are still very resistant to DNA and its connotations of evolution.

19:59 jeffreykegler I did think of sewing, seams and zippers, but in the case of DNA, you have the additional element that the two halves match up in a way that preserves information, which is crucial.

20:00 ronsavage As for http://irclog.perlgeek.de/​marpa/2015-01-07#i_9901243,I'll write a demo now.

20:02 jeffreykegler As for the anti-evolution element, my use of the analogy only involves the chemistry -- at the moment I would hope that the parses do *not* evolve through random mutation.

20:08 ronsavage Hmmm. Zips work precisely because the 2 sides match, but yes, the preservation-of-information argument is good. Your call

20:23 After a few test runs, I don't think Text :: Balanced :: Marpa is a good fit for reading config files.

2 more elements. Show/hide.

 

← Previous day | Channels | #marpa index | Today | Next day → | Search | Google Search | Plain-Text | summary

 

Powered by ilbot, built with the Perl programming language. Provided by Moritz Lenz. Please direct suggestions and bug reports to moritz on irc.freenode.net or moritz 'at' faui2k3 dot org.

 

Imprint

 

_______

 

http://jeffreykegler.github.com/Marpa-web-site/

 

http://savage.net.au/Marpa.html

 

________

 

It raised interesting questions--Interesting to me, at any rate :

 

Can a machine parser detect incorrect grammar or syntax in a language--if it is indeed a language--such as the symbols/characters of the VM without one first discovering and supplying a trial grammar?

 

Apparently, it's the lack of any grammar for the VM which would prevent its parsing the symbols--or, it might parse them but not produce any meaningful result in other than the same symbol set--which we don't know how to read.

Edited January 4, 2017 by proximity1

[iNow]

Have you considered joining a legal forum? You seem to prefer litigation to science discussion, AFAICT

[swansont]

Had it not been for Tom O' Neil's posting about his "wild-ass guess work," I think it's a virtual certainty that I'd have needed far longer before I stumbled upon the fascinating thing called the Marpra parser. I only wish I understood programming so I could better appreciate this thing :

 

 

And what relevance does that have to this discussion?

[Phi for All]

"You're really the only person arguing that the Lounge is unfairly misleading."

 

The only one arguing the point--but I think you've leapt from that fact to the supposition that I'm also the only one who does or ever has _thought_ so.

That's more insulting than being called a hypocrite. You don't know me very well, but I don't make such leaps. That's one of the most irrational arguments you've made so far, and it's completely unsupported. Please show where it was EVER implied by ANYONE that you're the only person who's ever thought this way.

 

Had it not been for Tom O' Neil's posting about his "wild-ass guess work," I think it's a virtual certainty that I'd have needed far longer before I stumbled upon the fascinating thing called the Marpra parser. I only wish I understood programming so I could better appreciate this thing :

 

 

from :

 

https://irclog.perlgeek.de/marpa/2015-01-07

 

Perl 6 - the future is here, just unevenly distributed

IRC log for #marpa, 2015-01-07

 

← Previous day | Channels | #marpa index | Today | Next day → | Search | Google Search | Plain-Text | summary

 

All times shown according to UTC.

Turn on filtering by nick Enable summary mode

Time Nick Message

2 more elements. Show/hide.

00:12 jeffreykegler re AFL: perhaps it's just something we should keep in mind.

00:15 Note that the Earley sets in Libmarpa are a large, complex "compact data format" -- the major difference between Libmarpa's internal data and a bytecode would be that it represents potential parses, rather than a sequence of instructions.

01:32 My doings:

01:33 Over the past few days I've caught up with various backlogs -- the recent developer's release of Marpa::R2 is one result.

01:33 Now I'm back to working on the document describing the partial parses technique. It's taking a bit of time ...

01:34 not because there are actual problems with the technique, but because I want to document *why* the algorithm is correct, ...

01:34 which means proofs.

01:35 Not of everything, but definitely of those things which are of the sort where I say to myself, "I know this is true, but I can't remember why".

01:35 So I write up the "why?" and that in high falutin't terms is what's called a proof.

01:36 * falutin't -> falutin'

01:38 Another part of this is coming up with terminology, and I plan to borrow some from biology -- the partial parses use special lexemes and non-terminals to match up at the edges ...

01:38 and I will call these special symbols "nucleobases" and "nucleotides" by analogy with DNA ...

01:40 My method for putting the partial parse trees together can be thought of as kind of like DNA replication ...

01:41 A left edge has symbols (nucleotides) and these are matched to symbols to create a right edge and to "transcribe" the left edge of the old parse into the right edge of the new one.

01:42 Once both parses exist, the nucleotide symbols are matched up, and used to join the two parses together.

01:42 Anyway, going back to writing that up is what I'm doing at the moment.

3 more elements. Show/hide.

06:41 ronsavage Now, I'm going to play with a proof-of-concept grammar for POD.

4 more elements. Show/hide.

 

★★★

15:50 jeffreykegler ronsavage: Between you and Jean-Damien we should soon have a Marpa-driven parse of the Voynich manuscript.

3 more elements. Show/hide.

18:09 jeffreykegler A question on perlmonks: "Parsing a config file with braces and nested braces -- http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=1112435

18:24 Continuing the DNA analogy, I may rename what I've been calling several things, including "partial parsing" and "constant space parsing".

18:25 I am thinking of calling it "strand parsing", on the idea that the partial trees are "strands" which the technique "transcribes" and joins together.

18:27 The DNA analogy has the disadvantage of importing a few high-falutin' biochemical, which could be seen as pretentious, ...

18:28 but I think it may have a real advantage -- many people intuitively the idea of the DNA code, and DNA spliting, joining and transcription ...

18:28 and it supplies a "mental picture" into which the details of my algorithm can fit.

2 more elements. Show/hide.

19:56 ronsavage Ah, yes, 'the Voynich manuscript'. I wrote a Marpa parser for that, but stored it in /tmp, and lost when I re-booted. Hahaha.

★★★

 

 

19:58 As for the DNA connexion. I'm thinking your plan more resembles a zipper, and regrettably, many people are still very resistant to DNA and its connotations of evolution.

19:59 jeffreykegler I did think of sewing, seams and zippers, but in the case of DNA, you have the additional element that the two halves match up in a way that preserves information, which is crucial.

20:00 ronsavage As for http://irclog.perlgeek.de/​marpa/2015-01-07#i_9901243,I'll write a demo now.

20:02 jeffreykegler As for the anti-evolution element, my use of the analogy only involves the chemistry -- at the moment I would hope that the parses do *not* evolve through random mutation.

20:08 ronsavage Hmmm. Zips work precisely because the 2 sides match, but yes, the preservation-of-information argument is good. Your call

20:23 After a few test runs, I don't think Text :: Balanced :: Marpa is a good fit for reading config files.

2 more elements. Show/hide.

 

← Previous day | Channels | #marpa index | Today | Next day → | Search | Google Search | Plain-Text | summary

 

Powered by ilbot, built with the Perl programming language. Provided by Moritz Lenz. Please direct suggestions and bug reports to moritz on irc.freenode.net or moritz 'at' faui2k3 dot org.

 

Imprint

 

_______

 

http://jeffreykegler.github.com/Marpa-web-site/

 

http://savage.net.au/Marpa.html

 

________

 

It raised interesting questions--Interesting to me, at any rate :

 

Can a machine parser detect incorrect grammar or syntax in a language--if it is indeed a language--such as the symbols/characters of the VM without one first discovering and supplying a trial grammar?

 

Apparently, it's the lack of any grammar for the VM which would prevent its parsing the symbols--or, it might parse them but not produce any meaningful result in other than the same symbol set--which we don't know how to read.

 

Wow! I see it's my mistake. You apparently don't mind wasting your time at all.

 

I've hopefully provided some signal, but it's way too noisy for me now. I'm OK with being this type of hypocrite.

[proximity1]

@ 97

 

Very good! There can actually be more than one opinion about what constitutes a waste of time.

Now maybe you can help Swansont. He has a question @ 96-- and it's one that I see as troubling from one in his role here.

 

 

___________________

 

ETA : Re: "I've hopefully provided some signal, but it's way too noisy for me now. I'm OK with being this type of hypocrite."

 

Excuse me but it was Tom O'Neil's effort which led me to compare searches on computer language parsing and the VM--that and my initial curiosity about his post on closed-mindedness. As I understand it, it's a sheer fluke that he wasn't already suspended or dismissed for persistent wild-ass guess-work.

 

"The more success the quantum theory has, the sillier it looks."

Edited January 4, 2017 by proximity1

[swansont]

@ 97

 

Very good! There can actually be more than one opinion about what constitutes a waste of time.

Now maybe you can help Swansont. He has a question @ 96-- and it's one that I see as troubling from one in his role here.

 

 

 

It was an inquiry — from a moderator (which is what I assume you mean by my role) — about staying on-topic. Why would you find that troubling? Do you not understand what moderators do?

[Strange]

The comment " if you don't like the rules here, you are free to leave", has been made by at least three members who should know better. It is reminiscent of the 60s counter-protest " America, love it or leave it".

 

 

One of my uses of the phrase was intended as a joke (given the context). OK, not a great joke but ...

 

I think it is completely different from the example you use because that was in regard to a (supposedly ) democratic country where the members are (should be) free to try and change it.

 

This is not a democracy. It is more like a club. The forum has rules. The members can request they be changed but there is no reason anyone should listen to those requests (and good reasons why they won't).

 

People read the rules when they sign up (what, you mean you didn't?) and chose to agree to them. If someone changes their mind and no longer likes the rules, the obvious option is to leave.