When thinking about the game of Tic Tac Toe,
I found that it is most natural to allow assumptions in the logic rules.
For example, in the definition of a potential "fork",
in which the player X can win in 2 ways.
How can we write the rules to determine a potential fork?
Here is a very "natural" way to state it:
assume X plays move a:
assume O plays an arbitrary (non-winning) move,
assume X plays move b then X wins,
or, assume X plays move c then X wins,
and b != c
then x is a potential fork.
So I wonder how can a logic inference engine handle assumptions?
Does OpenCog or NARS have this ability?
Thanks :)
YKY
------------------------------------------
Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI
Permalink:
https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T74958068c4e0a30f-Me5665989cf89a81d743e90be
Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
