On 7/28/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Your inference trajectory assumes that "cybersex" and "STD" are > probabilistically independent within "sex" but this is not the case.
We only know that: P(sex | cybersex) = high P(STD | sex) = high If we're also given that P(STD | cybersex) = 0 then the question is moot -- it is already answered. It is a problem because we're not given the 3rd piece of information... > PLN would make this error using the independence-assumption-based term logic > deduction rule; but in practice this rule is supposed to be overridden in > cases of known dependencies. Why don't PLN use Pei-Wang-style confidence? YKY ------------------------------------------- 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=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
