Advertisement

Evolving Algebras and Mathematical Models of Language

  • Lawrence S. Moss
  • David E. Johnson
Chapter
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 247)

Abstract

Mathematical models are important not only because they enable an observer to make testable predicitions about some phenomenon, but also because they are the tools with which the theoretician organizes observations and decides what to study.

Keywords

Turing Machine Finite State Machine Transition Rule Parse Tree Dynamic Idea 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Börger, E. and Rosenzweig, D.: 1992a, A simple mathematical model for full prolog, Techical Report TR-33/92, Dipartimento di Informatica, U. Pisa.Google Scholar
  2. Börger, E. and Rosenzweig, D.: 1992b, The WAM — definition and compiler correctness, Techical Report TR-33/92, Dipartimento di Informatica, U. Pisa.Google Scholar
  3. Glavan, P. and Rosenzweig, D.: to appear, “Communicating evolving algebras”. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Computer Science Logic, Berlin: Springer Verlag, LNCS.Google Scholar
  4. Gurevich, Y.: 1994, “Evolving algebra 1993: Lipari guide.” In: E. Borger (ed.), Specification and Validation Methods, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Gurevich, Y.: 1991, “Evolving algebras: a tutorial introduction”, Bulletin of the European Association for Theoretical Computer Science 43, pp. 264–286.Google Scholar
  6. Gurevich, Y. and Huggins, J.: 1993, “The evolving algebra semantics of C”. In: Computer Science Logic, Berlin: Springer Verlag, LNCS.Google Scholar
  7. Gurevich, Y. and Morris, J.: 1987, “Algebraic operational semantics and Modula-2”. In: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Computer Science Logic, Berlin: Springer Verlag, LNCS 329, pp. 81–101.Google Scholar
  8. Gurevich, Y. and Moss, L.S.: 1990, “Algebraic operational semantics and occam”. In: E. Borger et al. (ed.), Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Computer Science Logic, Berlin: Springer Verlag, LNCS 440, pp. 176–196.Google Scholar
  9. Johnson, D.E., Meyers, A. and Moss, L.S.: 1993, “Parsing with relational grammar”. In: Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 97–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Johnson, D.E. and Moss, L.S.: in press, “Generalizing feature structures for stratified relational analyses”. In: Linguistics and Computation, Stanford: Stanford University, CSLI Press.Google Scholar
  11. Johnson, D.E. and Moss, L.S.: to appear, “Grammar formalisms viewed as evolving algebras”, Linguistics and Philosophy. Google Scholar
  12. Johnson, D.E. and Moss, L.S.: 1993, “Some formal properties of stratified feature grammars,” Annals of Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics 9, pp. 133–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Milward, D.: 1992, “Dynamics, dependency grammar and incremental interpretation”. In: Proceedings of COLING 92, pp. 1095–1099.Google Scholar
  14. Pereira, F.: 1981, “Extraposition grammars”, American Journal of Computational Linguistics Vol. 7 no. 4, pp. 243–256.Google Scholar
  15. Pereira, F. and Warren, D.H.D.: 1980, “Definite clause grammars for language analysis — a survey of the formalism and a comparison with augmented transition networks”, Artificial Intelligence 13, pp. 231–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lawrence S. Moss
    • 1
  • David E. Johnson
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics, Department of Computer ScienceIndiana UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Mathematical Sciences Department, Thomas J. Watson Research CenterIBM Research DivisionUSA

Personalised recommendations