On 8/5/08, Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Prolog (and logic programming) is Turing complete, but FOL is not a > > programming language so I'm not sure. > > You are right, I should have said "FOL is turing complete within the > right inference system [such as Prolog], but only when > predicates/relations/functions beyond the ones in the data are > allowed."
Well... is "Turing complete" really that important? I mean, most non-trivial KR schemes should be Turing complete. Also, one can "splice" new predicates into old rules, thus eliminating them. So strictly speaking, new predicates do not add new content. But they may make machine learning easier in heuristics (just speculation). Oh wait... the exception is that new predicates are necessary for defining recursive predicates. So yes, predicate invention is necessary if resulting logic program need to contain recursive predicates. As for functions... ILP is complex enough with function-free FOL already. Researchers usually use a "flattening" technique to eliminate functions. So I don't know much about function creation. > So, you are not trying to create your own new probabilistic logic, you > are just trying to develop 1st-order bayesian networks further? Yeah, I'm trying to distribute probabilities over fuzziness, with first-order Bayes nets. This is already quite complex. And even this seems unable to model some subtleties of commonsense concepts.... so I need more thinking of it. 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
