> proving
Whereas your contribution is?
> know
An interview from Yann LeCun came out yesterday: it defined (S)LMs along those lines. Maybe discuss the matter with him. Does YLC represent an authoritative part enough for you?
> don't feel
"Outstanding". Does not make much sense here
You're proving that thinking and knowing are wholly uncorrelated.
> Not all Language Models need to be based on relational frequencies of term occurrence.
"A language model is a probability distribution over sequences of words"
If you don't even know what an LM is, I don't feel like reading the rest of this.