Re: SUO: 15 May 2002 -- Abstract Syntax & Set Theory
On 5/14/02 23:30, "Jon Awbrey" <jawbrey@oakland.edu> wrote:
>
> €~~~~~~~~~€~~~~~~~~~€~~~~~~~~~€~~~~~~~~~€~~~~~~~~~€
>
> Abstract Syntax
>
> I have noticed people increasingly bandying about
> the words "abstract syntax", for instance in the
> Conceptual Graph Standard (Working Draft):
>
> http://www.jfsowa.com/cg/cgstand.htm
>
> Also in the CLog papers (sorry, but the identifier "CL" has
> long been pre-empted by the subject of "Combinatory Logic"):
Actually, it was pre-empted 15 years ago by "Common Lisp". So what?
> This appears to be a poorly labelled repackaging
> of a standard subject in formal language theory --
> twenty years ago it was commonly referred to as
> "Allied Families of Language" (AFL's), but I'm
> sure the name has changed six times since then.
> At any rate, an AFL by any other name is just
> a category of formal languages, in other words,
> a category whose objects are formal languages
> and whose arrows are morphisms between them.
> I think that this probably puts us outside
> the the ballpark of the Boys of FOL.
Jon, what's the point of this? Again, so what? Even if this is a "standard
subject in formal language theory", it's work that still needs to be done,
even if it is in your view pedestrian work. You are aware, I suppose, that
the syntax of CL differs significantly from the standard FOL syntax we all
know and love. So, why criticize it? You should be among the first to
applaud such an effort -- if you want something to criticize, the CL group
is giving you a nice, fat, rigorously defined target to shoot at.
Wondering why I bother...
.bill