• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About FlatAssembler

  • Rank
  1. For instance, the sound change "'b' between two vowels turns to a 'v'" can be described in JavaScript as, for example: var str="haben" //Or whichever word in a language before that sound change. var regular=/(a|e|i|o|u)b(a|e|i|o|u)/; //In the syntax used internally in some places of the code of the web-game, the character 'V' represents all the vowels. str=str.replace(regular,regular.exec(str)[1]+'v'+regular.exec(str)[2]); See the Part #3 of the web-game, there are some more examples there (using a different syntax for regular expressions, so that they can be both easily generated randomly and converted easily to JavaScript regexp objects).
  2. When it comes to semantics, human languages certainly aren't regular expressions. Regular expressions aren't Turing-complete and human languages clearly are. Human languages probably aren't regular expressions even when it comes to morphosyntax. But, at their core, etymology and phonology, I would argue that they are. Sound changes, for example, are, in principle, exceptionless.
  3. That's not a commercial site, that's my blog. And I don't get payed for people reading it. If I did, I probably wouldn't do it in raw HTML. I'll repost that link: because they'll probably change their rules for me It does. There is the Part #2 and Part #3. And, it's true, Part #1 doesn't really require you to apply linguistic principles, but other parts definitely do that. So, do you agree that human languages are, at their core, regular expressions? Why? Why not?
  4. Airplanes don't exist (a parody of the conspiracy theorists)

    You've horribly missinterpreted what I was trying to say. I meant to say that it's much better for students to study programming than history or biology, because, when a student reads something about history or biology, he generally has no way to verify if that's true. When one studies programming, it's easy for him to verify that what he learns is true simply by copy-pasting the code examples into the compiler. Even when something he reads about history and biology is true, he is more than likely to misunderstand it. Think of how many times you've misunderstood something about programming, even when you could easily check it using the compiler. And how are the arguments used by the Moon-landing conspiracy theories better?
  5. Airplanes don't exist (a parody of the conspiracy theorists)

    The critical thinking skills we are taught in schools don't work in real life. We are told not to trust Wikipedia. In reality, Wikipedia is one of the most reliable sources of information on-line. We are being encouraged to study things (like biology or history) we cannot easily verify. In reality, if you try to do that, even if you do come to the truth, you will misunderstand everything. We are told it's important to know how to debate. In reality, debating on Internet forums is usually counter-productive. You can't discuss with someone who values ad-hoc hypotheses over reasoning and experiments. And so on...
  6. Airplanes don't exist (a parody of the conspiracy theorists)

    Well, I was once a Flat-Earther. I simply didn't think about it too much, I was just basically parroting whatever other Flat-Earthers are saying. They have some seemingly sensical arguments, such as "The horizon appears to rise with you as you climb.", but most of their arguments are simply nonsensical. But they had hundreds of those arguments. I was thinking like "Well, it doesn't make sense to me, but I can conceive there is something I am unaware of, so that their arguments actually do make sense." I was manipulated and indoctrinated. I didn't think enough to realize that their claims are impossible even if you give people super-human powers to lie and keep secrets and that it's easy to find pseudoscientific and pseudophilosophical arguments for whatever thesis you can come up with.
  7. A question about American politics

    Hey, guys! I happen to live in Croatia. I know that the American conservatives claim that it's justified for the US to be involved in a war because it brings people freedom and capitalism. So, I have a serious question about it. How do the American conservatives respond to the notion that the America's involvement in the Yugoslav Wars (the bombings of Belgrade) is responsible for the recent rise of socialism (as an opposition to the "capitalism") in Croatia? To me, that notion appears quite plausible. Not everyone knows this, but more people were killed in the bombings of Belgrade than in of Vukovar. And the war was, by the time of the bombings of Belgrade, for all practical purposes, over. Very few people in Belgrade still believed in neofascism at that point in time. Those bombings basically killed thousands of people who had nothing to do with the war crimes the neofascists did other than being the same nationality, and nationality isn't the same as political affiliation. Furthermore, the neofascists were storing most of their ammunition near the concentration camps in northern Bosnia, and not in Belgrade. Similarly, during the World War 2, the USA and the UK interventions on the territory of the modern-day Croatia probably increased the number of casualties. Namely, at the beginning of World War 2, they financially supported the Chetnik party, which later turned out to be cooperating with the Fascists.
  8. I apparently can't post such long threads here, but I've posted that parody on several Internet forums, like here: http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=124565
  9. I think that, at their core (etymology and phonology), human languages can quite accurately be described as regular expressions. Using that, I've made a flash-card web-game about linguistics that randomly generates words as if they were in two related languages, but unfortunately the moderators insist advertising is against the rules. What do you think?