Leibniz’ Language
More and more I’m agreeing with Shuli that any page on the internet that is not comment-enabled seems fundamentally broken. Maybe that’s just me, though.
I had a quick comment on Language Log’s recent “A smart person with a stupid idea,” but have since re-read the article only to find that my comment isn’t all that relevant.
The article is interesting, though, so I’ll just plug it instead. Mark Liberman discusses Leibniz’ lingua generalis:
The key ideas were a characteristica universalis that assigns a different prime number to each primitive concept (we’re guaranteed never to run out of primes), and a calculus ratiocinator that creates complex concepts by multiplication (since the prime factorization theorem guarantees a unique decomposition into primitives) and evaluates predication by division (are the factors of the predicate among the factors of the subject?).
He follows by asking,
Suppose that A and B are propositions — whether atomic or complex doesn’t matter — and we’ve assigned 27 to the concept “implies” — what about “A implies B” vs. “B implies A”? And what about more elaborate formulae where order matters? I can imagine various procedures for encoding string order or formula structure as products of primes, but did Leibniz have a story to tell about this?
I can also think of ways of encoding formula structure, and it rapidly becomes such a fantastically complex system that I could get lost in a contented daze just thinking about it.
Comments
So I’ve heard. It’s on my reading list, but it may be some time before I get to it.
Posted by: kasei on April 13th, 2004 11:03 PM
You should take a took at Stephenson’s “Quicksilver”, Leibniz shows up quite a bit throughout the novel. It’s interesting to see how he and other “Natural Philosphers” like him are portrayed in Stephenson’s story.
Posted by: Matthew on April 13th, 2004 7:25 PM