About NARS... Nesov/Wang dialogued: > Why do you need so many rules? > > > > I didn't expect so many rules myself at the beginning. I add new rules > > only when the existing ones are not enough for a situation. It will be > > great if someone can find a simpler design. > > > I feel that some of complexity comes from modeling of natural language > statements. Do you agree? >
I think the complexity comes from the particular logical/algebraic formalism underlying NARS... In PLN, which is similar to NARS in some respects but with a probabilistic foundation, there are fewer rules because the underlying algebra is more powerful, allowing more cases in which rules may be derived from other rules. E.g. in NARS, induction and abduction are primary rules, whereas in PLN they are derived via combining Bayes rule with deduction in different (simple) ways. And in NARS, higher-order inference rules are posited separately than first-order inference rules, whereas in PLN most of the higher-order rules are derived directly from corresponding first-order rules. [Note that in PLN and NARS, the terms first-order and higher-order have different meanings than the ones often seen. First order term logic is the pure logic of inheritance with no explicit variables or quantifiers; higher-order term logic introduced quantified variables.] -- Ben G ----- 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/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=56116649-ef41f9
