Can linguistics be justified with math laws?

Day sixty-three -- Can linguistics be justified with math laws?

[quote="sangi39"] On the whole ... is that the mathematical justification for PreBabel also justifies something which on a purely mathematical basis is over 100 times easier than current teaching methods, i.e. justification by maths allows for "ridiculous" proposals. [/quote]

Every feasibility study of a project begins with the justification by math. If something cannot be justified by math which can simulate many, many, many circumstances, its chance for success is very small. After having a number, the "direction" for a test plan can thus be selected, instead of shooting dots randomly.

Analogy uses the similarity in logic. Simulation uses the similarity of math structure. Both of them are very valuable tools for difficult and complex problems.

On the issue of how much easier that PreBabel (Chinese) is comparing with the old school way, it can be analogized or simulated with the following example. There are 6,000 multiplication numbers.

1. (35 X 41) = 1435

2. (78 x 63 * 35) = 171990

3. ...

5999. (27 x 87) = 2349

6000. (5 x 19 x 34 x 27) = 87210

Then, there are two schools, Sa and Sb.

Students of Sa must memorize all those 6,000 multiplications as stand alone items.

Students of Sb learn a multiplication table which consists of only 45 stand alone items and a procedure of multiplication.

The memory energy required for these two school students can be calculated very easily with the following assumptions and procedure.

1. the memory ability of both school students is the same.

2. it takes the same amount of memory energy for each stand alone item. 3. the memory energy for Sa students to memorize all those 6,000 items is set as 100.

Question: how much memory energy Sb students must spend to do the same as the Sa students?

a. Sb student need to memorize only 45 items. That is, 45 / 6000 = 0.0075 = 0.75%

b. Sb student must learn a multiplication procedure. I will "guess" that it needs no more energy than memorizing those 45 items. Of course, if anyone disagree with me on my guess, I can change to his number if he can show that he is correct.

So, the total memory energy that Sb student must spend on this is 0.0075 x 2 = 0.015 = 1.5%

100 / (0.015 x 100) = 66.6666

That is, the Sb method is 66.666 times easier than the Sa method. Furthermore, every new item requires memory energy for Sa student while zero memory energy is needed for Sb student. Of course, this is just a simulation which can be far off from the real case. Yet, is it a ridiculous proposal? I don't think so. If you still disagree with me on this, then nothing else I can say. If you can agree with me on this half way, then the following argument should make some senses to you.

There are three types of vocabulary sets:

1. Type A -- chaotic data set, most of the member of the set are stand alone without any logic or genealogical connection with other members. That is, it is neither a root for others nor a derivative of any other members.

2. Type B -- axiomatic data set, the entire set can be derived from:

a. a finite number (the lesser the better) of basic building blocks, the word roots.

b. a finite number of rules for construction of its members.

3. Type C -- a hybrid data set, the mixing of Type A and B.

If we simply change the word "vocabulary" to "number", it becomes a summary of the above Sa and Sb example. Of course, there are some questions which must be answered.

i. Can we use the same procedure to calculate these "vocabulary" system?

ii. Is the old school way of learning Chinese written language similar to the Sa of the number learning? iii. Is the PreBabel (Chinese) school similar to the Sb?

My answers for them are all positive. So, my number of 19.4 times easier is not ridiculous. Only if you could show that those three questions with some negative answers, then my calculation could be wrong, and of course there is no chance of that.

In fact, we have hashed out this issue many times. The simplest way is doing some tests. I have many real test cases, and some of those detailed case data are available online for everyone's review and challenge (including by Taiwan government and many universities). You mentioned that you cannot read Chinese newspaper. Obviously, you have tried learning some Chinese with the old school way as it was the only way available for you before the PreBabel (Chinese). I am very surprised that you did not try the PreBabel (Chinese). If you did at the beginning of this thread (almost 5 months ago), not only you would have been able to read Chinese newspaper by now, but you would have known more Chinese etymology than "any, any, any..." Chinese language professor in the Beijing or Taiwan university. If you are not interested in learning Chinese written language, then it is fine. If you are, then you are wasting the precious time of your life going with the old school way.

Signature -- PreBabel is the true universal language, it is available at

http://www.prebabel.info