Abram,
>
> Anyway, perhaps I can try to shed some light on the broader exchange?
> My route has been to understand "A is B" as not P(A|B), but instead
> P("A is X" | "B is X") plus the extensional equivalent... under this
> light, the negative evidence presented by two statements "B is C" and
> "A is not C" reduces the frequency of "A is B", but does not obviously
> have any bearing on "B is A". (Perhaps it does have some indirect
> bearing, for example through some rule of inversion... but of course
> the system is not yet even well-defined, so I'll not speculate.)
The way we deal with intension in PLN is a little different..
We define a fuzzy set A_PAT associated with a term A, and then the degree of
membership of W in A_PAT is of the form
x*y
where
x is a term measuring the simplicity of W relative to A
and
y = [P(W | A) - P(W)]^+
(where []^+ denotes the positive part)
We can then measure
P( A_PAT | B_PAT)
and so forth...
-- Ben
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=114414975-3c8e69
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
