Excavating, the following, correctly tagged “man’s world”, was found:
The linguist’s spouse walked in, caught the marriage partner sleeping with a co-ed and said, “I’m surprised.” The linguist bolted upright, pointed the finger and corrected , “No. I am surprised. You are astonished.”
Thanks for a lovely gettogether and cocktails!. I recall the days when in the Officers Mess, I was expected to ask only for Whisky. I always went for Scotch. Occasional beer to wash that whisky down was normal. I liked the Fench Contreau after dinner. With men I had to have their drink – Rum. Without limits.
With all regards to French champaignes, I liked to have ‘Sovetskoe Shampanskoe’. Of course a tot of Vodka any day any time.
Now, I have had enough of all that, just a few glasses of hot water without any additives are fine with me.
"In ..., we have the prohibition."
A.C.Jones in his paper “A Note on the Theory of Boffles”, Proceedings of the National Society, 13, first defined a Biffle to be a non-definite Boffle and asked if every Biffle was reducible.
C.D. Brown in “On a paper by A.C.Jones”, Biffle, 24, answered in part this question by defining a Wuffle to be a reducible Biffle and he was then able to show that all Wuffles were reducible.
H. Green, P. Smith, and D. Jones in their review of Brown’s paper, Wuffle Review, 48, suggested the name Woffle for any Wuffle other than the nontrivial Wuffle and conjectured that the total number of Woffles would be at least as great as the number so far known to exist. They asked if this conjecture was the strongest possible.
T. Brown in “A collection of 250 papers on Woffle Theory dedicated to the honor of R.S.Green on his 23rd birthday” defined a Piffle to be an infinite multi-variable sub-polynormal Woffle which does not satisfy the lower regular Q-property. He states, but was unable to prove, that there was at least a finite number of Piffles.
T.Smith, L.Jones, R.Brown, and A.Green in their collected works “A short introduction to the classical theory of the Piffle”, Piffle Press, $20, showed that all bi-universal Piffles were strictly descending and conjectured that to prove a stronger result would be harder.
It is this conjecture which motivated the present paper.
Dept. of Pure Mathematics, The University. Sheffield, England, 1966
This is an projected joke. the following are not intended. If an error shows, the usual techniques to abide scientific appearance are executed. In everlasting, randomized order of recurrence: the most popular examples of “reductio ad grotesquum”:
Cause versus correlation
Impossible to differ. Therefore, a high correlation of the appearance of storks and the birthrate obviously proves creationism. Details of the proof are left, as a simple exercise.
Q: Do you know the newest joke about statistics? A: Probably.
Is assumed to be given. Should a random variable, against rationality, be abnormally distributed, the “Central limit theorem” holds. Thus, 1234567 monkeys with a typewriter each must incorporate an author of “Romeo and Juliet“, up to a probability of 0.99.
Contrary to needs (e. g. in bookmarking), instead of using more realistic applications based on multiigraphs, methodologies using trees, endowed with cost functions, are investigated.
As Shakespeare put it: “Faith is FOL and FOL is faith” Despite the significance of predicate calculus, FOL alone is not even capable to define the natural numbers.Nevertheless, everyone (AKA every{{ø}}) seems to be a FOL-goer, especially since no Last Order Logic exists.
@DW
> One of the dangers of contrasting (for example) statistics with logic is that this is really about comparing empiricist and rationalist methods.
I agree that one should not confuse mathematical methods with any kind of dogma — empiricist, rationalist, or theological.
Mathematical methods, including logic and statistics, are neutral with respect to any kind of application. For example, one could apply statistics to bridge either by a priori calculation of the probabilities or by gathering data about how people play the game.
@DW
> … every new science must find a fertile balance between these scientific methods, and the recent swing from “linguistics should be rationalist” to “linguistics should be empiricist” takes us to another glass ceiling.
As a science, linguistics is as old as Aristotle, and the pendulum is always swinging. In the 1950s, information theory and grammar discovery procedures were dominant, and Charles Fries did some very interesting work with the tiny corpora available.
In the late ’50s, Chomsky began his campaign against statistics, information theory, grammar discovery procedures, and finite-state machines. Instead, he promoted “the native speaker’s intuition” (i.e., his own intuition) as the ultimate standard.
Computational linguists have always been more empirical. Even when they used their own intuition to write grammar rules, they tested them by running their systems on actual data. That’s just as empirical as a physicist’s using intuition to write a theory and then testing its predictions against the data.
The ultimate criterion for science is the ability to make predictions about future observations. It’s irrelevant whether the methodology began with intuition, statistical analysis, or some combination of both.
John Sowa
Proofs are availabe.