Works — A manuscript the record’s claims are marshalled into. Membership says a claim is in the work; whether the record believes it is the status, and the two disagree (ADR-032).
What Survives Translation? — the owner’s working manuscript, drafted October 2026: contextual pragmatic information transport, combining structuralism, speech-act pragmatics, sheaf-theoretic contextuality, symmetry, rate–distortion and Blackwell comparison, conditional diffusion and iterated learning.
5 of 52 ARG documents. Back to the full index.
| # | Title | Summary | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| ARG-022 v2 | The 2016 Contextuality-by-Default paper grounds the criterion the manuscript’s general observational covers need | The manuscript cites Dzhafarov and Kujala 2016 for its contextuality criterion. The 2016 criterion was being replaced by multimaximal couplings as it appeared, and the change matters for observables in more than two contexts, which the manuscript’s general observational covers allow. Proposed, by the owner’s ruling of 2026-10-27: the record holds that the change can bite, not that it does. | Rejected — Rejected on the condition its own body names, “a worked system that is noncontextual under CbD 1.0 and contextual under 2.0”: THEORY-168’s note of 2026-10-29 gives one, binary, with a content in four contexts. |
| ARG-033 v2 | Saussure’s value, as the record reads it, supports transport of relational identity across languages | CLAIM-115’s transport rests on CLAIM-082’s structuralist premise, which draws on Saussure. CLAIM-072 said the premise survives the record’s correction to value. CLAIM-254 objected that value is fixed inside one language state, so what crosses is signification, the aspect the premise demotes, and that value is a fact of the language system while the line’s observables are facts of use. CLAIM-242 replied with a use-level counterpart of value. Open. | Proposed |
| ARG-034 v2 | Saussure’s account of value grounds the premise that significance is fixed by contrasts rather than by correspondence to a referent | The manuscript §2 cites Saussure for a sign’s “significance” depending on contrasts within a system “rather than on intrinsic correspondence to a referent”. Rejected as an inference to CLAIM-082 as titled. Saussure says purely differential only of signifier and signified taken apart, distinguishes value from signification, and brackets the referent: the fix is to say value rather than significance and drop the referent contrast. | Rejected |
| ARG-035 | Griffiths and Kalish’s convergence theorem and Kirby, Cornish and Smith’s chains show that serial transmission is filtered by the transmitters’ inductive biases | The manuscript’s §8 cites Griffiths and Kalish and Kirby, Cornish and Smith together as showing that transmission is filtered by inductive biases. They show different things. Kirby et al. measured no prior, and their structure appeared only under the experimenter’s homonym filter; Griffiths and Kalish’s convergence to the prior holds only for sampling learners. Proposed: the stable endpoint far from the ancestor survives for sampling learners, and whether people learn that way is QUESTION-137. | Proposed |
| ARG-040 v2 | In use, an utterance is interpreted by its contrast with the alternatives its speaker could have used, so what a translation must let a receiver reconstruct is those contrasts, not the wording or the proposition | A second line to CLAIM-115, independent of Saussure, filed at the owner’s direction from ARG-033’s note that CLAIM-242 “could be the premise of a second line”. It starts from contrast in use, the rational-speech-act premise (THEORY-172) and Bergen, Goodman and Levy’s finding (LIT-809), not from value in the language system. Proposed: the reference games and the alternatives they model are much narrower than translation. | Proposed |