The trouble is that you can only really decide whether a statement is "non-probabilistic" if enough people have voted unanimously yes or no. Even then you can't be sure that the next person to vote won't go the opposite way.
On 24/01/07, YKY (Yan King Yin) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/24/07, Bob Mottram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think it would be better to design a system with probabilistic reasoning as a fundamental component from the outset, rather than trying to bolt this on as an after thought. I know from doing a lot of stuff with machine vision that modelling sensor uncertainties is critical for being able to understand the spatial structure of the environment, and I expect similar principles will apply when reasoning within more abstract domains. Yes I agree. I think Pei Wang's version of uncertain logic is very simple and effective. It uses 2 numbers, one for probability (as frequency) and one for "support" or "confidence". On the other hand, I suspect that many commonsense statements do not have probabilistic values attached to them. For example "water conducts electricity" or "oil is slippery" are not really probabilistic. We should leave an option for a statement to be non-probabilistic. YKY ------------------------------ This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
