My system

[renzhe]

Step 1: When n = 1, premise A is correct

Step 2: When n = k, premise A is correct, k is an arbitrary integer

Step 3: When n = k + 1, premise A is correct,

If any step fails, premise A is not correct.

I'm afraid it doesn't work like this. You have to prove it for every single element of the domain, not just for a subset.

Induction infers rules from a set of inputs and a set of outputs, but it cannot prove that the rule is correct. This is why the scientific method uses deductive steps (experiments) in an attempt to disprove scientific theories. A single exception makes the rule invalid and calls for a revised rule. Look it up here.

[realmayo]

We have:

One person starting to learn how to read/write Chinese via a system which he claims is new.

Several people saying that much or most of that system does not appear to be new.

Those several people haven't paid the large amount of money to buy to book which explains the system.

The one person here starting to use that system is too new to it all to explain it to anyone's satisfaction, and too new to it all to put this system in the context of the kinds of ways of learning which lots of us have followed ourselves or have stumbled on ourselves or have worked out for ourselves.

Anyone arriving at this thread wondering whether to pay the large amount of money to buy to book to discover this system would therefore see an argument and then plenty of counterarguments.

Why not leave it at that? Charged_Ion thinks he has some very new system but -- based on what he can so far tell us about it -- we don't think it's particularly new. Why not wait six months, or 12 months, until Charged_Ion can come back with more knowledge & understanding.

Until someone has successfuly used the system and can describe it, we won't get anywhere: in fact the risk is we get here: http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png!

EDIT: Charged_Ion: good luck with the system and I hope it works for you and I hope that when it does you'll tell us more about it, Chinese characters can be very rewarding to study so I hope you enjoy it and progress quickly!

[chaxiu]

I second what Realmayo has said. Give yourself some time to use the system and then tells us the pros/cons.

Perhaps you could post questions on the forum about things you need help with. I feel like I'm reading propaganda. Are any of the ideas that you posted actually your own. I'm waiting for 'you can but the book here' or ' Oh, I'm actually writing a comic book...'

Characters are definitely my favourite part of learning Chinese. Good luck

A few questions:

1. What is your reason/goal for learning Chinese? I mean are you just learning the meaning of individual characters.

2. How long have you been using this system? (I assume a few months)

3. How many characters do you know?

4. Of the characters you know, how many can you write or pronounce?

Chaxiu

[Lu]

Example 1

Premise: Chinese word system is very complicated and do not have a logic.

Statement: Gong's system insists that Chinese words have a logic.

Conclusion: Gong's system cannot be valid.

I hope you're not implying that anyone here thinks there is no logic to the Chinese system. Of course there is logic. Only people who don't know Chinese think there isn't.

Anyway, good luck with the system, and do come back in a year or so to explain it to us all in more detail.

[skylee]

realmayo, thanks for the link in your #22. And what you said in the post too.

[realmayo]

Glad you like the cartoon!

[roddy]

These people have opted to respond to some of the issues raised here on their own site - you can see questions and answers here. Anyone who wants to continue the dialogue can perhaps take a look, personally I'm leaving them in peace.

[imron]

A couple of things I can't let go:

Question (from imron, Chinese forum): They were reporting on it yes, but it would seem as a special interest story rather than a thorough investigation of the world record attempt, and what it actually meant.

* Answer (from World Record Committee):

If you are implying that those Chinese reporters are lacking journalist integrity, we think that it could happen for one or two such reporters. For all (more than a dozen) of them to be liars (in the sake of some interests) is way beyond our hearts to take. If it is the case, we are truly, truly, truly... sorry, although it is not a shame of ours.

However, we are truly shocked that anyone can contemplating that all Chinese reporters (who attended Jason's meeting) are crooks. It will be truly, truly sad even if this is only a remote possibility (crooked reporters). If imron truly believes that there is such a possibility, he should ask the editor-in-chief of those newspapers to investigate this possibility, and we will follow his lead to demand an answer. Indeed, we should act right now instead of throwing cheap shots to smear a third party in a discussion forum.

I didn't say the reporters were crooks or dishonest or that they were liars. I said they were reporting a special interest story rather than conducting a thorough investigation on the merits of the world record, with the implication being that as such, they didn't see a need to thoroughly investigate the claims being made. So, while I believe there was some sloppy reporting happening, that is not the same as being dishonest or lying. Regarding that matter, in the same post where I made that comment, I listed 7 serious concerns I had about the whole process. Not one of these points was addressed in the articles, nor have chinese-etymology addressed any of these points on their site. I don't feel that these 7 points are "cheap shots intended to smear a third party" but rather represent serious flaws with the testing methodology used. I would be interested in seeing a response to those 7 points.

Question (from imron): This is easily demonstrated by the fact that the majority of the Chinese media reports shown on the chinese-etymology.com site claim that this is a Guinness Record (????), when in fact it is not Guinness Records conducting or verifying the test but rather a self-styled World Record Committee.

2. After checking many times over, we did not find any news report which stated that Jason's record "is" a Guinness record. They used two words, 創 (creating) or 破 (breaking). They reported that Jason was "trying" to 創 or to 破 Guinness record (of course, if there is such a record). Without such a Guinness record, any such a record is a 破 and a 創 relating to Guinness record. The bottom line is that not a single report stated that Jason's record is or will be a Guinness record.

Perhaps I should have been more clear in making my point. My statement here was intended to mean that they were claiming this was a Guinness Record attempt. This should have been clear by my follow-on statement that said "when in fact it is not Guinness Records conducting or verifying the test". My point is, if it is not Guinness Records conducting or verifying the test then you cannot say you are trying to break or set a Guinness Record. To do so is misleading as it adds an air of legitimacy to the whole process that it would otherwise lack, and in my opinion is sloppy reporting by the reporters covering the story. (Please note: sloppy does not mean I think the reportser were crooks or dishonest).

Finally

Note: from the posts of your discussion forum, we noticed that no member of that forum knows that 的 means the "target."

That's a silly conclusion to make. Most people with intermediate or above level of Chinese will know it means that from the word 目的, just like we will also know that it can mean 确实，实在 e.g. in the word 的确. Anyone seriously studying Chinese will have come across the different pronunciations and meanings of the character 的 during the course of their studies.

[renzhe]

If the entire system (textbook required to duplicate Jason's feat) is online and available for free, like they claim, then I'm unable to find it. I can only find samples and examples.

Anyway, I am well aware that they are not trying to convince you or me or sinologists. They are trying to convince people who don't know better. Hence the answers are not targetted at me or imron, but at people who have doubts about the system and should be understood as such.

If people are convinced by their arguments, enough to shell out the $400, then it's up to them. I'm not.

Edited November 23, 2008 at 08:20 PM by renzhe

[roddy]

It's so easy, a nine-year old can do it. I was going to add more comment, but I don't like to mock.

[gougou]

I was going to add more comment, but I don't like to mock.

Pretty please!

[HerrPetersen]

Quote:

Step 1: When n = 1, premise A is correct

Step 2: When n = k, premise A is correct, k is an arbitrary integer

Step 3: When n = k + 1, premise A is correct,

If any step fails, premise A is not correct.

I'm afraid it doesn't work like this. You have to prove it for every single element of the domain, not just for a subset.

Induction infers rules from a set of inputs and a set of outputs, but it cannot prove that the rule is correct. This is why the scientific method uses deductive steps (experiments) in an attempt to disprove scientific theories. A single exception makes the rule invalid and calls for a revised rule. Look it up here.

Actually this is a fool-proof method to prove the correctness of propositions over natural/whole numbers. So in context of the mathematical axiomatic rule-set this is a perfectly fine method to prove the correctness of an assertion. (this is the only context in which one can 100% fool-proof stuff)

Example: For all natural number n (that is 1,2,3,4,...) the following equation holds:

1+2+...+n=n(n+1)/2 (supposedly Gauss found this formula when he was 9 or so years old)

(steps one, two and three are easily checked)

Problem is of course: We are in the real world (as opposed to the mathematical rule-set of integers).

Trying to apply this principle to something as vague as a "learning system" is (mathematical) suicide.

Edited January 22, 2009 at 03:43 PM by HerrPetersen

[renzhe]

It works for integers, because you can define an integer following n based on n by performing a mathematical operation (n+1). This rule holds for all integers.

There is no such rule for Chinese characters, giving you 明 from 李 or anything similar.

So if you want to prove that a rule holds for all Chinese characters, you have to actually show that it holds for all Chinese characters. Showing that it works for 明 doesn't in any way imply that it will hold for 李.

[HerrPetersen]

I was not even sure if he was trying to apply the induction principle to the characters or the system in general. The hanzi seem to be the only candidate for a countable set - so you should probably be right.

I just re-read his argumentation. So yes: step 3 fails because of lack of an order structure on the set of all hanzi.

Edited January 23, 2009 at 08:08 PM by HerrPetersen

[English Erik]

Ok long time reader but this is my first post so here goes;

Sorry if this has been posted before, and it must of, but I just cant find it.

On the website here this guy Jason Tyler Gong claims he learnt how to read a Chinese newspaper from no knowlege of Chinese. Proves his points, methodology, feedback to criticisms, world record, recognition etc............

Looking through his methodology he certainly has some good points and brings a new scientific way to learning Chinese. But saying that it all seems like one of those '6 pack in 6 weeks schemes'. Then looking on to the related links here and for the books here , the book to acheive such magic costs $400!!

So can any people more in the know than myself agree with his way, and more importantly has anyone actually read that book? I can't find it on amazon, bit suspect if you ask me.

would really like to have some feedback from you guys as im about to embark on a long journey of etymology for my dissertation, and if theres any value in his way I would love to know.

Cheers,

Erik

p.s. if anyone knows any great books regarding Etymolgy in Chinese then please pm me, I would really be grateful. Maybe the works of 将绍愚 for example? 说文解字注? Im just trying to find the best way to learn about the development of a certain group of characters, so am guessing will need to go through all sorts of dictionaries etc. Sorry for being a bit vague and amateury but maybe someone really knows about this subject??

[roddy]

It's your fifth post, and I'm about to merge with prior discussions . . .

[English Erik]

Sorry I meant to say 'first real post', or maybe it was my first real thread, but got moved anyway. ill go and hang my noob head in shame......

[roddy]

Aw, don't do that.

Anyway, as the above and the other linked discussions show - nobody seems to think it's worth $400.

[English Erik]

Cheers for moving it though, im just going through it now, thanks

[Hofmann]

Anyone who buys that book should seriously consider buying my book about stuff.