From: jeffrey E. <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 12:21 PM To: Noam Chomsky Subject: Re: Re: lye read ten of yangs recent papers. I firmly believe that h=s computer science perceptions , limits his breadth. man= in the past years on probabilistic learning. probabilit=es in language. . etc. not rigorous to say the least. ..=complex formulas that ignore that statistics are not probabilities. =. over and over.. to have probability one needs . symmetry, e=tropy, repetition. . the space of probabilities must be defined. =AO the lens into that space needs to be constrained. the law of larg= numbers applies as a mirade formula to test the accuracy of prediction. = IT does not exist in language. . one can toy with the statist=c generated all they like , but arriving at the structure of the spa=e, using that method is hopeless. it is the mathematics of com=utation. thinking is not computation though it shares many similarit=es. thinking I believe requires exploring fully the space of w=at is NOT the answer. When the military was trying to better their t=rgeting ability , years of trying to hit the bulls eye with missiles =became easier when they turned the equation on its head , and focused inst=ad of not missing. 1 minus the probability of failure. equals =uccess. . biology seems to behave as exploring the space and =liminating what does not work in order to find the solution. computi=g goes directly for the target. all possible combinations min=s the nonsense , equals coherent sentences. On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 1=:13 PM, Noam Chomsky < <mailto:[email protected]=u» wrote: I follow up to the point where you wr=te "the organizing principle of the shape is language... =80 No doubt it can (partially) be described in language, but that =99s not what you mean. Zipf's law is a rank-frequenc= distribution. And also meaningless, as Mandelbrot showed 60 years a=o. I hope Yang is clear about this. He surely knows.=/u> Noam From: jeffrey E. [ma