Richard Loosemore wrote:
Brad Paulsen wrote:
I've been following this thread pretty much since the beginning. I
hope I didn't miss anything subtle. You'll let me know if I have, I'm
sure. ;=)
It appears the need for temporal dependencies or different levels of
reasoning has been
For what it is worth, I agree with Richard Loosemore in that your
first description was a bit ambiguous, and it sounded like you were
saying that backward chaining would add facts to the knowledge base,
which would be wrong. But you've cleared up the ambiguity.
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 5:02 AM,
The way I see it, on the expert systems front, bayesian networks
replaced the algorithms being currently discussed. These are more
flexible, since they are probabilistic, and also have associated
learning algorithms. For nonprobabilistic systems, the resolution
algorithm is more generally
Abram Demski wrote:
For what it is worth, I agree with Richard Loosemore in that your
first description was a bit ambiguous, and it sounded like you were
saying that backward chaining would add facts to the knowledge base,
which would be wrong. But you've cleared up the ambiguity.
I concur: I
From: Pei Wang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 12:49 AM, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In pattern recognition, are some patterns not expressible with
automata?
I'd rather say not easily/naturally expressible. Automata is not a
popular technique in pattern
