[ Not sure if this should be asked here or on the OpenCog list... tell
me which one is more appropriate ]
I think it will be very helpful and illuminating to some of us here
(including myself) who are more familar with FOL than PLN, to give a
1-1 correspondence (either exact or approximate) betwee
> Here are some examples in FOL:
>
> "Mary is female"
>female(mary)
Could be
Inheritance Mary female
or
Evaluation female mary
(the latter being equivalent to female(mary) )
but none of these has an uncertain truth value attached...
> This is a [production] "rule": (not to be confused
--- On Sun, 6/1/08, YKY (Yan King Yin) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "a person is either male or female"
> forall X, male(X) V female(X)
forall X, person(X) -> ((male(X) V female(X)) & -(male(X) & female(X)))
One of the hazards of FOL is we tend to overlook the obvious.
> *** bonus questio
Ben, Thanks for the answers.
One more question about the term "atom" used in OpenCog.
In logic an "atom" is a predicate applied to some arguments, for example:
female(X)
female(mary)
female(mother(john))
etc.
Truth values only apply to "propositions", but they may consist of
only sin
On 6/2/08, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> forall X, person(X) -> ((male(X) V female(X)) & -(male(X) & female(X)))
>
> One of the hazards of FOL is we tend to overlook the obvious.
Even this is still an inaccurate description of reality. I was just
trying to give a simple example...
> Do OpenCog atoms roughly correspond to logical atoms?
Not really
> And what is the counterpart of (logic) propositions in OpenCog?
ExtensionalImplication relations I guess...
> I suggest don't use non-standard terminology 'cause it's very confusing...
So long as it's well-defined, I guess it
> I think it's fine that you use the term "atom" in your own way. The
> important thing is, whatever the objects that you attach probabilities
> to, that class of objects should correspond to *propositions* in FOL.
> From there it would be easier for me to understand your ideas.
Well, no, we atta
On 6/2/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> eats(x, mouse)
That's a perfectly legitimate proposition. So it is perfectly OK to write:
> P( eats(x,mouse) )
Note here that I assume your "mouse" refers to a particular instance
of a mouse, as in:
eats(X, mouse_1234)
What's confusing
Well, it's still difficult for me to get a handle on how your logic
works, I hope you will provide some info in your docs, re the
correspondence between FOL and PLN.
I think it's fine that you use the term "atom" in your own way. The
important thing is, whatever the objects that you attach probab
On 6/2/08, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> YKY, how are you going to solve the natural language interface problem? You
> seem to be going down the same path as CYC. What is different about your
> system?
One more point:
Yes, my system is similar to Cyc in that it's logic-based. Bu
Ben,
I should not say that FOL is the "standard" of KR, but that it's
merely more popular. I think researchers ought to be free to explore
whatever they want.
Can we simply treat PLN as a black box, so you don't have to explain
its internals, and just tell us what are the input and output format
> More likely though, is that your algorithm is incomplete wrt FOL, ie,
> there may be some things that FOL can infer but PLN can't. Either
> that, or your algorithm may be actually slower than FOL.
FOL is not an algorithm, it:s a representational formalism...
As compared to standard logical the
--- On Mon, 6/2/08, YKY (Yan King Yin) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > YKY, how are you going to solve the natural language
> interface problem? You seem to be going down the same path
> as CYC. What is different about your system?
>
> One more point:
>
> Yes, my system is similar to Cyc in tha
YKY,
>Can you give an example of something expressed in PLN that is very
hard or impossible to express in FOL?
FYI, I recently run into some issues with my [under-development]
formal language (which is being designed for my AGI-user
communication) when trying to express statements like:
"John sa
One thing I don't get, YKY, is why you think you are going to take
textbook methods that have already been shown to fail, and somehow
make them work. Can't you see that many others have tried to use
FOL and ILP already, and they've run into intractable combinatorial
explosion problems?
Some may a
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 3:46 PM, YKY (Yan King Yin)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> Note that I did not pick FOL as my starting point because I wanted to
> go against you, or be a troublemaker. I chose it because that's what
> the textbooks I read were using. There is nothing personal her
Also, YKY, I can't help but note that your currently approach seems
extremely similar to Texai (which seems quite similar to Cyc to me),
more so than to OpenCog Prime (my proposal for a Novamente-like system
built on OpenCog, not yet fully documented but I'm actively working on
the docs now).
I wo
On 6/3/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, YKY, I can't help but note that your currently approach seems
> extremely similar to Texai (which seems quite similar to Cyc to me),
> more so than to OpenCog Prime (my proposal for a Novamente-like system
> built on OpenCog, not yet fully
Hi Ben,
Note that I did not pick FOL as my starting point because I wanted to
go against you, or be a troublemaker. I chose it because that's what
the textbooks I read were using. There is nothing personal here.
It's just like Chinese being my first language because I was born in
China. I don't
On 6/3/08, Jiri Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> FYI, I recently run into some issues with my [under-development]
> formal language (which is being designed for my AGI-user
> communication) when trying to express statements like:
>
> "John said that if he knew yesterday what he knows today, h
On 6/3/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) representing uncertainties in a way that leads to tractable, meaningful
> logical manipulations. Indefinite probabilities achieve this. I'm not saying
> they're the only way to achieve this, but I'll argue that single-number,
> Walley-inter
On 6/3/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One thing I don't get, YKY, is why you think you are going to take
> textbook methods that have already been shown to fail, and somehow
> make them work. Can't you see that many others have tried to use
> FOL and ILP already, and they've run in
On 6/3/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One thing I don't get, YKY, is why you think you are going to take
> textbook methods that have already been shown to fail, and somehow
> make them work. Can't you see that many others have tried to use
> FOL and ILP already, and they've run in
> On 6/3/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2) using inference rules that lead to relatively high-confidence uncertainty
> > propagation. For instance term logic deduction is better for uncertain
> > inference than modus ponens deduction, as detailed analysis reveals
Sorry, I missed
>
> As we have discussed a while back on the OpenCog mail list, I would like to
> see a RDF interface to some level of the OpenCog Atom Table. I think that
> would suit both YKY and myself. Our discussion went so far as to consider
> ways to assign URI's to appropriate atoms.
Yes, I still think
> First of all, the *tractability* of your algorithm depends on
> heuristics that you design, which are separable from the underlying
> probabilistic logic calculus. In your mind, these 2 things may be
> mixed up.
>
> Indefinite probabilities DO NOT imply faster inference.
> Domain-specific heuris
2.791.7860
- Original Message
From: Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2008 1:59:54 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] OpenCog's logic compared to FOL?
Also, YKY, I can't help but note that your currently approach seems
extremely similar t
>
> You have done something new, but not so new as to be in a totally
> different dimension.
>
> YKY
I have some ideas more like that too but I've postponed trying to sell them
to others, for the moment ;-) ... it's hard enough to sell fairly basic stuff
like PLN ...
Look for some stuff on the ap
Ben,
If we don't work out the correspondence (even approximately) between
FOL and term logic, this conversation would not be very fruitful. I
don't even know what you're doing with PLN. I suggest we try to work
it out here step by step. If your approach really makes sense to me,
you will gain a
Propositions are not the only things that can have truth values...
I don't have time to carry out a detailed mathematical discussion of
this right now...
We're about to (this week) finalize the PLN book draft ... I'll send
you a pre-publication PDF early next week and then you can read it and
we
On 6/4/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Propositions are not the only things that can have truth values...
"Terms" in term logic can have truth values. But such "terms"
correspond to propositions in FOL. There is absolutely no confusion
here.
> I don't have time to carry out a deta
hello ben
if i can have a pdf draf,i think you very much
bruno
- Message d'origine
De : Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
À : agi@v2.listbox.com
Envoyé le : Mardi, 3 Juin 2008, 18h33mn 02s
Objet : Re: [agi] OpenCog's logic compared to FOL?
Propositions are not the only
On 6/3/08, Stephen Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe that the crisp (i.e. certain or very near certain) KR for these
> domains will facilitate the use of FOL inference (e.g. subsumption) when I
> need it to supplement the current Texai spreading activation techniques for
> word sense d
On 6/3/08, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you have any insights on how this learning will be done?
That research area is known as ILP (inductive logic programming).
It's very powerful in the sense that almost anything (eg, any Prolog
program) can be learned that way. But the proble
n) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2008 12:20:19 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] OpenCog's logic compared to FOL?
On 6/3/08, Stephen Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I believe that the crisp (i.e. certain or very near certain) KR for these
domains will fac
On 6/4/08, Stephen Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All of the work to date on program generation, macro processing,
> application configuration via parameters, compilation, assembly, and program
> optimization has used crisp knowledge representation (i.e. non-probabilistic
> data structures).
USA 78704
512.791.7860
- Original Message
From: YKY (Yan King Yin) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2008 5:29:07 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] OpenCog's logic compared to FOL?
On 6/4/08, Stephen Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
All of the work to
37 matches
Mail list logo
