On 09/03/2016 07:19 AM, Ben Goertzel wrote:
About ContextLink / CompositeTruthValue -- an interesting relevant
question is whether we want/need to use it in the PLN backward chainer
which Nil is now re-implementing.... Quite possibly we do...
It's clear both the forward and backward chainer need to be able to
handle contextual reasoning rather than constantly un/contextualize
links. That is one should be able to launch reasoning queries in certain
contexts. Not supported at the moment but I feel we can afford
incremental progress in that respect.
Nil
On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Linas Vepstas <linasveps...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes. I am starting to get very annoyed. Whenever I talk about
CompositeTruthValue, which I did earlier, I get the big brushoff. Now, when
I finally was able to sneak it back into the conversation, I once again get
the big brushoff.
I am starting to get really angry about this. I am spending wayyy too much
time writing these emails, and all I get is blank stares and the occasional
snide remark back. This is just not that complicated, but as long as you do
not bother to apply your considerable brainpower to all of this, the
conversation is utterly completely stalled.
I'm pretty angry right now.
--linas
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 10:44 PM, Ben Goertzel <b...@goertzel.org> wrote:
Linas,
On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Linas Vepstas <linasveps...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Today, by default, with the way the chainers are designed, the various
different atomspaces are *always* merged back together again (into one
single, global atomspace), and you are inventing things like
"distributional
TV" to control how that merge is done.
I am trying to point out that there is another possibility: one could,
if
desired, maintain many distinct atomspaces, and only sometimes merge
them.
So, for just a moment, just pretend you actually did want to do that.
How
could it actually be done? Because doing it in the "naive" way is not
practical. Well, there are several ways of doing this more efficiently.
One way is to create a new TV, which stores the pairs (atomspace-id,
simple-TV) Then, if you wanted to merge two of these "abstract"
atomspaces
into one, you could just *erase* the atomspace-id. Just as easy as that
--
erase some info. You could even take two different (atomspace-id,
simple-TV)
pairs and mash them into one distributional TV.
I note that we used to have something essentially equivalent to this,
for basically this same reason.....
It was called CompositeTruthValue, and was a truth value object that
contained mutliple truth values, indexed by a certain ID. The ID
was a version-ID not an atomspace-ID, but same difference...
A dude named Linas Vepstas got rid of this mechanism, because he
(probably correctly) felt it was a poor software design ;)
The replacement methodology is to use EmbeddedTruthValueLink and
ContextAnchorNode , as in the example
Evaluation
PredicateNode "thinks"
ConceptNode "Bob"
ContextAnchorNode "123"
EmbeddedTruthValueLink <0>
ContextAnchorNode "123"
Inheritance Ben sane
which uses more memory but does not complicate the core code so much...
-- Ben
--
Ben Goertzel, PhD
http://goertzel.org
Super-benevolent super-intelligence is the thought the Global Brain is
currently struggling to form...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"link-grammar" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to link-grammar+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to link-gram...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/link-grammar.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"link-grammar" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to link-grammar+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to link-gram...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/link-grammar.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"opencog" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to opencog+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to opencog@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/57CD152C.1070300%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
