Archive for the ‘uncategorised’ Category

“words” are [scientifically] baseless things!

i have written 25 minutes ago to : :

“words” are [scientifically] baseless things!

where from they have come? just from spaces between them. who and why decided to put spaces there? i think they had not good proofs, else we would know that proofs. i know only theory about lexemes to put in dictionaries, and their word forms.

also “words” in grammar come from old grammars written in old times for latin, arabic, etc. but it is not authoritative source. you should know how much errors were in old sciences of chemistry, medicine, astronomy.

as i know apertium already does not stick with traditional words, for example, as i know, for turkic languages some words which are written separately are used as word modifier tags in apertium.

but still lemmas with modifier tags are used in apertium and as i know there is no way to show whether some another word is used with lemma only, or with lemma with some suffix(es)…

but i think real atoms of syntax are morphemes and it is an idea written by several authors in several books.

also i think that syntax and morpholgy should be redivided and renamed. one of them (syntax?) should include all trees in both of syntax and morphology. (similar idea is also suggested in a book). and part of morphology should go to a science named like “surface decoration of syntax trees”.

difference is in possible different priority/order of using morphemes. in many cases resulting meaning is similar, because in that cases a(bc) = (ab)c ; it can be written “a bc” but it can have meaning (ab)c and there can be not much practical problem if translation program uses it as a(bc), since a(bc) = (ab)c. for example “a” can be an adverb, “b” – a verb and “c” – gerund suffix. for example, “frankly speaking”.

i can give an example when this has practical differences. in turkic languages verb negation suffix is written sticked and in apertium it is also used as a tag. usually adverb is used with verb stem (ie to part without negation suffix) and negation is used to the phrase consisting of verb and adverb. for example: “кызу бармады” – “qozu barmado” in tatar is “did not go fast” and has structure “{{кызу бар}ма}ды” – “did not {go fast}”. but you cannot use this as a rule, similarly written sequence of morphemes can has also another structure: “бөтенләй эшләмәде” – “botonlay islamadi” means “(he/she/it/they) has not worked at all” and it has structure “{бөтенләй} {эшләмәде}” – “{did not work} {at all}” , or “{{бөтенләй} {эшләмә}}де” – “did {{not work} {at all}}”. ( alternatively it could have structure “{{{бөтенләй эшлә}мә}де}” and meaning “did not make wholly” – “did not {make wholly}”. )

to translate this correctly from tatar to english you should better use morphemes as atoms, as tree nodes instead of words, because you should find correct tree structure before you translate, and you should be able to set morphemes at correct places of tree. as i remember apertium does not use syntax trees at all for now, or uses them only for some language pairs, or you have some instrument for them and experimenting with them, but sets words as word forms in tree nodes.

probably there are also other examples with other suffixes. there is also imperative mood suffix in tatar language, with which i expect to find similar example, and i do not completely deny such problem with other suffixes like negation and gerund suffixes when translating from some language to some language.

About domains’ trailing dot

my comment at :

my reply to the text by the first link ( ):

Originally, as defined in RFC 1738 (§ 3.1), the “host” portion of a (Common Internet Scheme) URL was always and unequivocally a fully qualified domain name and the conventional mechanism for distinguishing fully-qualified domain names from non-fully-qualified domain names did not apply. Whether it was or, the host was intended to be the same.

— i think he is not right, i think “” was not allowed at all in urls according to rfc 1738, it is cited in the second text, and i cite it:

3.1. Common Internet Scheme Syntax
        The fully qualified domain name of a network host

and “” could not be used in http headers at that time, because rfc 1738 is of 1994 and host field appeared only with http 1.1 in 1997 (you can check in wikipedia).

so, indeed, only fqdn was left allowed in urls. i think, this was a error in rfc 1738, because in such way it made (tried to make) the “relative domains” feature useless. if it did not disallow it, they theoretically could be used in “a” tag hrefs in local scripted sites or static html documentation inside big companies that used relative domains, if browsers and servers supported it. but even if rfc 1738 disallowed them, people did not obey it: they continued to use top level domains in relative form ie without trailing dot, so this disallowing by rfc 1738 was not a big practical problem anyway, and people had and used an alternative to relative domains: they just made local top-level domains like “localhost” (and used and use them also without trailing dot).

then he says:

Unfortunately, in practice web browsers have always violated that specification and passed the “host” portion through the name qualification procedures of their DNS Client libraries when mapping the host name to a set of IP addresses. (For example, those that used the BIND DNS Client library would leave the RES_DNSRCH option set and would not append the final trailing dot if it was missing.)

— i think he meaned that hosts without trailing dot should be just thrown off as error, and only absolute domains (fqdn) should be passed to dns. i think probably browsers did pass all domains to dns because people used their custom local top level domains like “localhost”. and anyway, later in rfc 2396 published in 1998, the usage of top level domains in urls without trailing dots was allowed.

then the author (Jonathan de Boyne Pollard) cites rfc 2396 and regrets about it changed according to the established human behaviour ie de facto standarts, says that better would be if browsers obeyed rfc 1738, and recommends to all people to use only fqdn, in all places, as it was commanded by rfc 1738.

— but what would happen if people obeyed rfc 1738? urls like “” and “http://localhost/test.html” all had to be rewritten as “” and “http://localhost./test.html“. browser would have to either mark hosts without dots as error, or redirect on clicking them to full/absolute form of them. all people who configured local top-level domains like “localhost” would have to configure their servers to accept only requests for domains like “localhost.” , or accept and redirect [all urls inside] “localhost” to [corresponding urls in] “localhost.”. text like “localhost” would stay useful only when typing it in browser address bar, but that would be only very useless usage, and the relative domain feature is not needed for that, because browsers search for domains on typing. usage of them in html source would become useless because it would lead to that such links would not work, or clicking all links with “localhost” would move user to “localhost.” and it would be just extra redirect on every click (on such links). so, rfc 1738 would make the planned “relative domain” feature entirely useless. if some company used that feature, and used their relative domains in their local sites, and their urls with relative domains were not redirected to absolute form by browsers, so their sites worked normally, if they also obeyed rfc 1736, they would configure their servers to accept only fqdn, and they would have to either rewrite all their such urls with fqdn, or work with extra redirect on every click on such urls. if that companies liked having short domain like “team101” instead of “” in their address bars and html sources, they would have to start to use their custom internal top-level domains like “team101.” ie like “localhost.” instead of subdomains like “” (which could be used as just “team101” before they decided to obey rfc 1738).

and i have found out that the trailing dot, which was so strongly supported by rfc 1738, really appeared only after the standart without trailing dots! it appeared with rfc 1034 in 1987, it is cited in the second link, and i cite it:

Since a complete domain name ends with the root label, this leads to a
printed form which ends in a dot.  We use this property to distinguish between:
- a character string which represents a complete domain name
 (often called "absolute").  For example, "poneria.ISI.EDU."
- a character string that represents the starting labels of a
 domain name which is incomplete, and should be completed by
 local software using knowledge of the local domain (often
 called "relative").  For example, "poneria" used in the
 ISI.EDU domain.

rfc 1034 (of 1987) just declared all domains which were used, seems they all were without trailing dots, declared them all as becoming relative domains! but they still worked as before, so probably few people knew out about that, and continued to think that they are unambiguously requesting a unique real “” site when they use “” without trailing dot. so that has become an additional security breach in some cases: famous real could be spoofed by a subdomain administrator even if he was not given rights to make any local domain like “localhost.”. so, rfc 1034 also was not designed very well: seems its authors did not expect that maybe it will be {not widely known, so creating security breach}!

probably rfc 1738 (1994) tried finally to bring the idea of distinction between absolute and relative domains to wide audience and also fix that security breach after 6 years, {but by fixing the security breach by disallowing relative domains in urls it made relative domains useless, {but i think they probably were not used widely, probably only in some big companies}}. so, what would be [left] in result of rfc 1737, if it would be obeyed? – 1) relative domains declared in 1987 would become finally useless, so, trailing dot, designed to show absolute domain, also would become finally useless and redundant “legally” ie as defined by the rfcs! (but maybe they planned later re-allow relative domains in urls after many years, when wide audience (general public) start to know about the possibility of relative domains). 2) and rfc 1737, if it was obeyed, would also fix the security breach. – but even rfc 1034 would not create the security breach if it reached masses and it was widely understood that using relative domain is not safe! – so, main recipe to fix it was reaching the wide audience, and publishing one more rfc was just one of many ways to do it.

i think now that probably the relative domain feature has not become widely known after rfc 1034 (of 1987) because it was of too limited use: only in some big companies or providers’ local networks, and it was a feature with no practical value, because local networks could already make any local domain, so that feature was just for itself, it was in fact just a useless text in rfc that anybody should know and use without having any additional benefit! but people created the little security breach by widely ignoring the rfc, while browsers started to obey it.

i checked the relative domains feature yesterday, it works. (it is ok, because rfc 2396 (of 1998) re-allowed it after rfc 1034 (of 1987) denied, and later rfc 3986 (of 2005) still allows them). i added dns suffix in windows 10 – control panel – … – network device properties – ipv4 properties – additional – dns tab. when i added “” then opened “http://mail/” in firefox, it opened google’s server, but it was not configured to work with just “mail” in the http “host” header, so i got something like “404” page.

my reply to the text by the second link ( ):

he also cites the rule in rfc 1738 and says:

Unfortunately, the people implementing web browser clients appeared not to understand what this meant. When you access a web site, the value most web browsers put in the “Host:” field is what the user typed, not what the computer actually ended up using, after applying the DNS user’s searchlist to constuct a fully-qualified name from the partial name. For example, here are three different ways the user may refer to the host “” … When sending the “Host:” parameter to the web server, the web browser client puts in what the user typed (“”, “”, or “www”) instead of what the client ended up actually looking up in DNS (“” in all three cases). …

— this is not very true(correct), because rfc 1738 was very strict in this regard, and it disallowed relative domains in all urls, even if it is in browser’s address bar, and url itself is the [recommended] way of making any references to sites, even if people write it on paper, so it was not allowed to users to refer to that site in that 3 ways, by rfc 1738, if that users were going to think by it that they used URL!

and seems the author of this text (Stuart Cheshire) did not know about rfc 2396, so this text is outdated.

and what is the situation nowadays? rfc 3986 ( ) allows referring to absolute domain without trailing dot: it says ” The rightmost domain label of a fully qualified domain name in DNS may be followed by a single “.” ” and that it should be used if it is “necessary to distinguish between the complete domain name and some local domain”. i think that due to de facto standarts it is almost never necessary, so wordpress can accept the de facto standart and redirect from address with trailing dot to the address without it.

seems there is not possible to comment

i have seen only now seems there is not possible to comment without registration. question against spam is not visible. probably there is error in plugin that is made by me.

how to know out camera’s true resolution

we have bought a 13 mp 5 mp cameras smartphone, leagoo alfa 2, from aliexpress, i have tested it, and discovered that it probably has 8 and 2 mp cameras. i have made photos with different image file size, and zoomed photos, and looked, whether detailedness increase with increased files size. you can see my test photos in .

i attach them here too, in blog post, and you can download original photos from the above link:

test of main (rear) camera:
2 mp:
5 mp:
8 mp:
10 mp:
12 mp:
13 mp:
– i see that there are no more new details after 8 mp.

test of front camera:
0.3 mp:
1 mp:
2 mp:
5 mp:
– i see that there are no more new details after 2 mp.

this blog’s old address

this blog was at address in past. now it is at .

Why is interest such a bad thing?

my answer in :

1a – no, because who has more money, will get much more money. if all people will have 100$ and only one people will have 101$, probably he will become much-much richer then the all other people, after some time.

1b – 1) “ATMs, online banking, etc” – that could be paid as paying for job. 2) you are asking about interest wich are already taken from debtors, but you was going to ask about taking interest at all, also by bank from debtors.

2 – probably there are many more other effective mechanisms.

2a – investments are allowed. it is possible to buy stocks of companies and it is named investment.

2b – 1) people should decide by themselves where to put their money, to earn reward from god. 2) giving money (temporarily) without riba (interest) is also win-win, because people should not keep their money without usage, it is said in quran in sura 104: ” Woe to every scorner and mocker Who collects wealth and [continuously] counts it. “. > 2016-apr-14 : maybe, the reason, why wealth should not be collected, is that it was material objects in past, and it is better if they do not lay without usage. but nowadays wealth can be “virtual” – paper and electronic memory, so, maybe, they are more allowed to be collected. < 3a - if there would be no interest used in the world maybe inflation would become much smaller. and maybe equivalent value loan is allowed, see Is making an “equivalent value” loan in accord with Islam? .

3b – see 3a.

3b, 1b – and you should not expect that your money grows, or stays at same level just without work by you. if you would have something like sheep, they would require some work from you, and if you would have gold, more gold is mined after time and it can become cheaper, and also even if it is not so, but people become more and gold relatively less and more expensive, you have to do some work to keep your gold safe from robbers. and muslims should pay zakat from their gold and silver, 1/40 of their gold every year, if its amount is not too small, as i rememeber. (but i do not know, whether zakat should be paid from loan). and so, even if you just get what you loaned, back, after some time, it is a “win”/useful for you, if you could not other way manage/handle that money/wealth by yourself, i.e. , it is a way of saving your money.

also i have written about this topic nearly 10 years ago in tatar language in a latin script in .

idea for robot makers (developers)

idea for robot makers: to make robots which gather dry trees and branches, brushwood. that wood can be used for burning to make electricity, and there are many other usages, and that, i assume, would save forests from fire.

astronomical time zones and country time zones

if you look at world time zones map, you will see that all time zones are shifted to west. i think it is because people do not want to be late, and prefer to do things earlier. so, i think, decision of people who made/designed time zones to make them centered at astronomical time zones was a flaw, sort of flaw, they could not predict people’s reaction/behavior…

if you have not understood yet: if astronomical 12 hours is at center of a zone, people who live westward from center will get also “12 hours” immediately, at same time with people who live at center of zone, but real time, real sun will get to them later, so they will do things, by watches/clocks time, earlier than if they would do by real sun time.

20:28 utc+3 (i am adding after several hours): i have changed my mind. it is ok. it is not flaw. astronomical/physical time zones and country time zones are different things, >sep29: they have not to be equal <, so just east regions of astronomical timezones use east neighbour timezone and that is ok. ie they prefer to do their affairs (correct word or not?) for 0,5 hours earlier than doing them 0,5 hours later than normal time. normal time is used in centers of time zones. 20:34 : i change title from "time zones flaw" to ... "astronomical time zones and country time zones".

Sentence syntax trees should be made from morphemes. Semantically ordered trees.

Previous version of this paper.

I have made new edition. sha1: 7839a0260d009f1e65b7c2c3c9183f22c8369e86 . md5: 2e17164501cc67ba72f9a12f011a6554 . size: 239398 bytes.

idea for youtube etc comments

to join similar comments (into groups).