"Todor:
- Identify the gravity force, their direction
- Identify a support plane/surface
- Identify a plane that's perpendicular to the gravity vector and and has a
support
- Size must be appropriate for sitting (area/length of the planes of the
ass, of the chair)
(Some additional)
- The center of gravity must be low enough so you don't fall after sitting
- The sitting plane has to be reachable, and must be big (or small) enough
There you go."
Mike:> Well, at least you’re trying.
Todor:
See also the old explanations, I'm lazy to search and copy.
>This isn’t really coherent – it sounds like you’re saying that all these
chairs must have a seat/”sitting >plane”/”support plane” to classify as
chairs.
>But what does a support plane or sitting plane look like? Draw it. There
are a lot of support planes >on these objects, just as gravity is acting on
them at many different points – and there isn’t one >concentrated direction
of “the gravity force.”
*Todor:*
*
*
"A plane" is a mathematical concept. It looks what a "plane" look, it's not
a drawing, it's a correlation of points in space, it can be in voxels, a
volumetric integral (if the thickness is taken), or surface integral which
if seen in low resolution is just a plane. If it doesn't turn into two
planes or if there's no plane after resolution reduction - that would be
something else.
There are not a lot of support planes, this is the lowest resolution
representation, and there is a concentrated direction - it's an "averaged
vector" and goes through the center of mass, which usually is through the
center of the plane that is perpendicular to the "ground", the ground is
found by the direction objects fall if there's no support etc. (Center of
mass is what allows drawing realistically human figure in action, and it is
one of the ways to anticipate motion in picture and that somebody is going
to fall - when she's out of balance, which is determined easily for the
human body, apparently by our experience of watching humans moving and
falling).
>If you mean that such a plane is any that a bum can sit on – what does
the bum (or human-figure-
>with-bum) you are going to apply to these drawings look like, and where
are you going to apply it?
>How do you know where to apply it – where and how to sit on these chairs?.
>And if your sole criterion of a chair is a seat/sitting plane, how are
you going to distinguish chairs >from swings?
Todor:
I have already written about that and answered some of those question.
Yes, there are many criteria, including the materials, here I'm talking
about the visuo-spatial static domain (voxels/contours/planes) and gravity
("statics" in physical terms). There are many specific details, which are
not essential.
A "swing" is obvious - it can swing and naturally swing ("swinging" is the
trajectories which are called so) - it's not static, it's dynamical, i.e.
the coordinates of those planes are supposed to change. Yes - they can be
changed for chairs with wheels, and one can swing on any chair (but may
fall back, too), but the directions are different. In visuo-spatial
low-resolution domain, they are similar, the details, materials, static or
dynamic, the axis where it rotates or swings, the location of the
chair/swing in global coordinates (the context) etc. etc. of course add to
the definitions, and all can be classified in sub-classes for specific
types of chairs, swings or whatever.
I am talking about general cases, in low resolution, otherwise there
couldn't be words, but just exact pictures, not concepts. I've already
discussed precisely this issue for chairs and buildings.
>Your method doesn’t add up to a coherent form – a “uniform block” - that
all these chairs have in >common –
It's the opposite.
> or a coherent method of sitting on them, and identifying them that way.
*
Todor:
*
The "method" is to compare the size/surface of the bottom to the surface
chair, the height to the ground, the strength of the support, of the back
etc., that defines whether you can sit and will you fall. Those comparisons
are literary comparisons: matching the size/area/height, numbers.
There are many ways of "sitting" etc., but "stool" or "chair" are
*general*, these are words - their purpose is to tell as much as possible
for the context with as little data as possible.
>P.S. And what happens if you’re confronted with a chair upside down, or
whose seat has been
>smashed? We can still recognize a chair if the seat is missing. How?
*Todor:
*
Upside-down is an invariant transform of a 3D object, it's a rotation
and/or translation, an object transformed that way (the system of
simplified planes) its the same in visuo-spatial voxel terms. (Also, if you
ask a little child what's this and show her a strange chair that's
upside-down, she may not tell you a "chair"). And since you understand
classical physics (everybody does in one extent or another) and those
transforms, you can see how to transform the chair (if laid on the ground)
so that you may sit on it as usual.
For average chairs/stools, there are some frequent additional features,
such as 4 legs, or legs, or a pillar with wheels, or a lever for adjusting
the height etc. also there is context - where this "thing" is - in front of
a desk, a table, ... (another plane) where people are seen to sit. Also
recognition is possible, because parts of chairs are different enough from
parts of other objects (otherwise it'd be ambibuous).
What means "smashed" - to what extent? If there are other parts which
match, they are still recognized, the plane is still there (if the legs
still stand, or if the chair is in pieces), the legs are still legs, the
back is still back (a plane/surface), the sizes are still the same and fit
an average or someone's bottom, there are wheels on a pillar with
appropriate size etc
>Your method doesn’t add up to a coherent form – a “uniform block” - that
all these chairs have in >common – or a coherent method of sitting on them,
and identifying them that way.
*Todor:
*
Mere text explanations are not a formal working system, the details are
gotten from the data, and it's faster than explaining it detail by detail.
Whatever, there's one way to prove and *show* what I'm talking about, it's
not by fruitless discussions and explanations.
--
** Todor "Tosh" Arnaudov **
*
-- Twenkid Research:* http://research.twenkid.com
-- *Self-Improving General Intelligence Conference*:
http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com/2012/07/news-sigi-2012-1-first-sigi-agi.html
*-- Todor Arnaudov's Researches Blog**: *http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com
-------------------------------------------
AGI
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
