Re: [agi] standard way to represent NL in logic?
Actually, the sound of language isn't just a subtle thing - it's foundational. Language is sounds first, and letters second (or third/fourth historically). And the sounds aren't just sounds - they express emotions about what is being said. Not just emphases per one earlier post. You could in principle have a logical approach to sounds - and deciding which sounds should be attached to given words - albeit there can be a vast variety of accents, dialects etc. - and then individual styles of speech. But your chances of attaching sounds successfully would be the same, presumably, as being able to understand that the same melody is being played on very different instruments (something someone else here recently referred to) - extremely low. Doesn't anyone discuss the problem of hearing (written as well as spoken) as well as reading language in processing it? It's a huge omission, if not. YKY/MT: YKY : Logic can deal with almost everything, depending on how much effort you put in it =) "LES sanglots longs. des violons. de l'automne. Blessent mon cour d'une langueur monotone." You don't just read those words, (and most words), you hear them. How's logic going to hear them? Google translates that into English as: "The long sobbing violins of autumn hurt my heart with a monotonous languor." Believe me, an AGI is potentially capable of appreciating the sounds of the verse and other such nuances. I won't go into the details, but the input sentence would be represented as a raw sensory event, and it is up to abductive interpretation to derive its meanings. That means, the AGI would understand it superficially as "The long sobbing violins... etc", but augmented with other logic formulae that convey other nuances. You're talking about some very suble effects and that's not my focus right now. Right now I'm focusing on simple and practical AGI. Your stuff is potentially solvable by logic-based AGI, but I won't be spending time on it now. YKY --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?&; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] standard way to represent NL in logic?
On 5/7/08, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > YKY : Logic can deal with almost everything, depending on how much effort > you put in it =) > > "LES sanglots longs. des violons. de l'automne. > Blessent mon cour d'une langueur monotone." > > You don't just read those words, (and most words), you hear them. How's > logic going to hear them? Google translates that into English as: "The long sobbing violins of autumn hurt my heart with a monotonous languor." Believe me, an AGI is potentially capable of appreciating the sounds of the verse and other such nuances. I won't go into the details, but the input sentence would be represented as a raw sensory event, and it is up to abductive interpretation to derive its meanings. That means, the AGI would understand it superficially as "The long sobbing violins... etc", but augmented with other logic formulae that convey other nuances. You're talking about some very suble effects and that's not my focus right now. Right now I'm focusing on simple and practical AGI. Your stuff is potentially solvable by logic-based AGI, but I won't be spending time on it now. YKY --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] standard way to represent NL in logic?
YKY : Logic can deal with almost everything, depending on how much effort you put in it =) "LES sanglots longs. des violons. de l'automne. Blessent mon cour d'une langueur monotone." You don't just read those words, (and most words), you hear them. How's logic going to hear them? "YOY YKY?" You understood that. How's logic going to? --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] standard way to represent NL in logic?
YKY, Ahh yes, I recall having studied this work a few years ago. That project has parsed and applied their disambiguation methods on the WordNet glosses and I have a copy of that somewhere. I thought to use their work, especially the higher quality entries, to prime my own project's understanding of the WordNet glosses. There is a straightforward conversion from the formulas you gave to the RDF semantic representation that I am using for Texai: john(e1) mary(e3) love(e2, e1, e3) is equivalent to the RDF: ?e1 is the same identity as John ?e3 is the same identity as Mary ?e2 is a love situation in ?e2 (the love situation), ?e1 (John) is the lover in ?e2, ?e3 (Mary) is the thing loved I invented terms for loving, lover and thing loved, which Cyc lacks. Cyc does have a relationship loves, but that only directly relates the agent with the thing loved. After thinking about the needs of natural language, I have come to believe that relationships should always be represented with respect to a containing situation, event, or action. Natural language verbs map nicely to situations, events and actions. OpenCyc has a lot of vocabulary for these but they are not uniformly applied throughout its knowledge base. I hope remedy that with my Texai approach. Cheers. -Steve Stephen L. Reed Artificial Intelligence Researcher http://texai.org/blog http://texai.org 3008 Oak Crest Ave. Austin, Texas, USA 78704 512.791.7860 - Original Message From: YKY (Yan King Yin) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Wednesday, May 7, 2008 2:30:11 PM Subject: Re: [agi] standard way to represent NL in logic? On 5/7/08, Stephen Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have not heard about Rus form. Could you provide a link or reference? This is one of the papers: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cache/papers/cs/22812/http:zSzzSzwww.seas.smu.eduzSz~vasilezSzictai2001.pdf/rus01high.pdf you can find some examples in the figures. The main thing is that (nearly) every word is "reified". For example, for "John loves Mary", we say that there is an entity e1 which is a John, and entity e2 which is an act of loving, and an entity e3 which is a Mary. So we have these formulae: john(e1) mary(e3) love(e2, e1, e3) Anyway, something like that Rus form is popularly used in text entailment programs. YKY --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?&; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] standard way to represent NL in logic?
On 5/7/08, Stephen Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have not heard about Rus form. Could you provide a link or reference? This is one of the papers: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cache/papers/cs/22812/http:zSzzSzwww.seas.smu.eduzSz~vasilezSzictai2001.pdf/rus01high.pdf you can find some examples in the figures. The main thing is that (nearly) every word is "reified". For example, for "John loves Mary", we say that there is an entity e1 which is a John, and entity e2 which is an act of loving, and an entity e3 which is a Mary. So we have these formulae: john(e1) mary(e3) love(e2, e1, e3) Anyway, something like that Rus form is popularly used in text entailment programs. YKY --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] standard way to represent NL in logic?
YKY, The "Rus form" is also a popular logical form, have you heard of it? I think it is complete in the sense that all English (or NL) sentences can be represented in it, but the drawback is that it's somewhat indirect. I have not heard about Rus form. Could you provide a link or reference? Cheers. -Steve Stephen L. Reed Artificial Intelligence Researcher http://texai.org/blog http://texai.org 3008 Oak Crest Ave. Austin, Texas, USA 78704 512.791.7860 Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] standard way to represent NL in logic?
On 5/7/08, Stephen Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To my knowledge there is a standard style but there is of course no standard > ontology. Roughly the standard style is First Order Predicate Calculus > (FOPC) and within the linguistics community this is called logical form. For > reference see James Allen's Natural Language Understanding, 2nd Edition, > Chapter 8 - Semantics and Logical Form. Also see Terence Parson's Events in > the Semantics of English, for a view that I have adopted with regard to the > semantics of verbs. > > As Texai is taught the principle English grammar constructions, I would be > glad to contribute the form <--> semantics pairings to the wiki-like place > you propose. Thanks, I'll check out those books. The "Rus form" is also a popular logical form, have you heard of it? I think it is complete in the sense that all English (or NL) sentences can be represented in it, but the drawback is that it's somewhat indirect. YKY --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] standard way to represent NL in logic?
On 5/7/08, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No. But it hasn't stopped people from trying. > > The meaning of sentences and even paragraphs depends on context that is > not captured in logic. Consider the following examples, where a different > word is emphasized in each case: > > - I didn't steal that. > - I DIDN'T steal that. > - I didn't STEAL that. > - I didn't steal THAT. > > And the following where you can guess the emphasis by context. > > - I didn't steal that. He did. > - I didn't steal that. It is still there. > - I didn't steal that. I borrowed it. > - I didn't steal that. I stole this. Contexts can be captured in logic. For example, John McCarthy's method is to use the special predicate "ist": ist(x, c) means that x is true in the context of c Your example of emphasis may be dealt with using multiple logical formulae. An additional formula may state that a certain word (or concept) is being emphasized. I wish to have a standard for the *surface* translation of NL to logic. Which means that the resulting logical forms are still open to interpretation within rich contexts. Logic can deal with almost everything, depending on how much effort you put in it =) YKY --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] standard way to represent NL in logic?
Hi YKY, To my knowledge there is a standard style but there is of course no standard ontology. Roughly the standard style is First Order Predicate Calculus (FOPC) and within the linguistics community this is called logical form. For reference see James Allen's Natural Language Understanding, 2nd Edition, Chapter 8 - Semantics and Logical Form. Also see Terence Parson's Events in the Semantics of English, for a view that I have adopted with regard to the semantics of verbs. As Texai is taught the principle English grammar constructions, I would be glad to contribute the form <--> semantics pairings to the wiki-like place you propose. -Steve Stephen L. Reed Artificial Intelligence Researcher http://texai.org/blog http://texai.org 3008 Oak Crest Ave. Austin, Texas, USA 78704 512.791.7860 - Original Message From: YKY (Yan King Yin) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Wednesday, May 7, 2008 9:48:00 AM Subject: [agi] standard way to represent NL in logic? Is there any standard (even informal) way of representing NL sentences in logic? Especially complex sentences like "John eat spaghetti with a fork" or "The dog that chased the cat jumped over the fence." etc. I have my own way of translating those sentences, but having a standard would be much better. Maybe we need to create such a standard, using a wiki-like place where people can contribute their NL <--> logic translations. YKY --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?&; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] standard way to represent NL in logic?
--- "YKY (Yan King Yin)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there any standard (even informal) way of representing NL sentences > in logic? No. But it hasn't stopped people from trying. The meaning of sentences and even paragraphs depends on context that is not captured in logic. Consider the following examples, where a different word is emphasized in each case: - I didn't steal that. - I DIDN'T steal that. - I didn't STEAL that. - I didn't steal THAT. And the following where you can guess the emphasis by context. - I didn't steal that. He did. - I didn't steal that. It is still there. - I didn't steal that. I borrowed it. - I didn't steal that. I stole this. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
