Live data from Hacker News

Mathematicians prove the triviality of English

theguardian.com

11–20 of 64 posts

Re: Mathematicians prove the triviality of English

#12

Well, if we set all letters to equal 1, then what is stopping this from working out? Haven't they just shown that the product of any combination of 1's is equal to the product of any other combination of ones?

The whole point is that they didn't immediately set all letters equal to one. The only relations they added (on top of cancellation) was that identically sounding words are equal within the monoid. From this, they were able to prove that the group must be the trivial group, no matter how you try to come up with a multiplication table.

Re: Mathematicians prove the triviality of English

#14

Well, if we set all letters to equal 1, then what is stopping this from working out? Haven't they just shown that the product of any combination of 1's is equal to the product of any other combination of ones?

What they proved is that, for certain words, all letters can work as a multiplicative identity element (which if we were talking about numbers it would be 1) Or, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghoti

Not quite, there's also ordering and indirectness. They've proved that all letters in the English alphabet have at least one word where either appending or prepending that letter does not modify the pronunciation, or have at least one word where changing the first or last letter to the one in question does not modify the pronunciation and that these are not disjoint sets.

Someone's silly Friday project, I think.

Re: Mathematicians prove the triviality of English

#15
post #5

Well, if we set all letters to equal 1, then what is stopping this from working out? Haven't they just shown that the product of any combination of 1's is equal to the product of any other combination of ones?

This wouldn't work in eg German, where there's no way to cancel out pronunciation like that.

Can you give an example of how this wouldn't work out? I can't even figure out how to make one up, and would like to see how it would look.

Re: Mathematicians prove the triviality of English

#16
post #11

But there are at least 6 ways to write "f" in english (for, off, photon, enough, wife, mazeltov);

I don't think you can include the mazeltov type there - I cannot think of a native english word that uses that pronunciation. Happy to be proven wrong though.

Re: Mathematicians prove the triviality of English

#17
post #16
post #11

But there are at least 6 ways to write "f" in english (for, off, photon, enough, wife, mazeltov);

I don't think you can include the mazeltov type there - I cannot think of a native english word that uses that pronunciation. Happy to be proven wrong though.

Yeah, and photon is not native english, but greek. But what's native english? All the -gh are old constructs and new english word never follow that pattern, is that modern english? Or a barbarism taken from another, old english language? What about french words, like garage, are that english?

Re: Mathematicians prove the triviality of English

#18
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you can include the mazeltov type there - I cannot think of a native english word that uses that pronunciation. Happy to be proven wrong though.

Yeah, and photon is not native english, but greek. But what's native english? All the -gh are old constructs and new english word never follow that pattern, is that modern english? Or a barbarism taken from another, old english language? What about french words, like garage, are that english?

Does it maybe have to do with how long a loan-word has been in use, or how commonly it's used?

Re: Mathematicians prove the triviality of English

#19

Well, if we set all letters to equal 1, then what is stopping this from working out? Haven't they just shown that the product of any combination of 1's is equal to the product of any other combination of ones?

> Well, if we set all letters to equal 1, then what is stopping this from working out?

> Haven't they just shown that the product of any combination of 1's is equal to the product of any other combination of ones?

tl;dr they weren't trying to find a solution, they were trying to characterise the behaviour of all possible solutions; but it turns out that there are no "non-trivial" solutions (i.e. setting all letters to equal 1 is the only way to solve it).

Longer version:

Technically, yes. However, that's not really the goal of this kind of algebra.

In school, we only tend to do algebra where all of the constants and variables are numbers; e.g. 2 * x = 4. Our goal was usually to find a particular value for x which is consistent with the equations, e.g. "solve for x" to get x = 2. Your solution of "set all letters to equal 1" is a perfectly valid way of achieving this kind of goal.

However, for the kind of algebra this article is about, we don't restrict ourselves to working with numbers. Instead, we explicitly avoid talking about "concrete" representations at all. We only focus on the equations we've been given. Some sets of equations are so common that they're given names, like "group (laws)", "semigroup (laws)", "field (laws)", etc.

The quote in the article tells us what the equations are:

> Regard English as a left-cancellative and right-cancellative multiplicative semigroup with identity, i.e. obeying the relations XY=ZY or YZ=YX implies X=Z, and having an element “1” such that 1X=X1=X.

Lots of things satisfy these equations. Some HN-relevant examples:

- Positive integers, where "1" is the number one and multiplication (written as juxtaposition "xy") is integer multiplication. Notice that we can't allow zero, since 1 * 0 = 2 * 0 does not imply that 1 = 2.

- Integers, where "1" is the number zero and multiplication is integer addition.

- Booleans, where "1" is False and multiplication is OR.

- Booleans, where "1" is True and multiplication is AND.

- Sets, where "1" is the empty set and multiplication is set union.

- Lists, where "1" is the empty list and multiplication is concatenation.

- Functions, where "1" is the identity function (i.e. "identity = function(arg) { return arg; }") and multiplication is function composition (i.e. "compose(x, y) = function(arg) { return x(y(arg)); }")

- Commands, where "1" is the no-op command (i.e. it performs no actions) and multiplication is sequencing (i.e. "xy = x; y")

By focusing on the equations and ignoring any particular representation, our results will apply to all representations; making this "universal algebra" a very powerful method.

What these mathematicians have done is impose a whole load of extra equations on top of the semigroup laws, of the form "AISLE = ISLE", etc. They've then shown that this large set of equations is equivalent to the single equation "x = 1".

In other words, they've shown that your solution (AKA the "trivial" solution) is the only solution. In other words, by imposing these extra rules, we've gone from a relatively interesting system which can describe functions, commands, lists, etc. to a relatively boring one, where representations might include:

- The set {one}, where multiplication is integer multiplication.

- The set {zero}, where multiplication is integer addition.

- The set {False}, where multiplication is OR.

- The set {True}, where multiplication is AND.

- The set {{}}, where multiplication is set union.

- The set {[]}, where multiplication is concatenation.

- The set {identity}, where multiplication is function composition.

- The set {no-op}, where multiplication is sequencing.

Re: Mathematicians prove the triviality of English

#20

Click-bait title much? I don't know about anyone else, but when I read that title I thought it would have something to do with syntax or semantics, not as a monoid word problem[1]. Also, why did they call it "semigroup with identity" instead of monoid? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_problem_for_groups

Not click-baity but seriously lacking in information. The work relates to the relationship of orthography to pronunciation in English. From the title I was expecting some syntactical or grammatical result. At the very least the title should read, "Mathematicians prove the triviality of English pronunciation" but even then that misses the mark, doesn't it?

Not only that, but I think the conclusions are frankly incorrect. I would not say that because LAM=LAMB (when spoken) that B=1. I would say that LA=LA and M=MB. B is not silent elsewhere, only in combination with M so it is false to discount the B (setting it to 1) without contextualising that B as being alongside an M when this happens, if you see what I mean. This to me seems so obvious that I fear I am missing something huge here because I can't think how otherwise they can assert what they are asserting.

Don't like to be harsh or snarky on HN but in this instance...?

Post reply on HN