Yes. So we must add those to the requirements. Then we need a design satisfying those requirements.That's the fun part: the "search" for a solution meeting all or most of these constraints. ~PM
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 13:53:31 -0500 Subject: Re: [agi] Internal Representation From: [email protected] To: [email protected] And it has to accommodate the roles a statement may play which can be implicitly or explicitly learned. Do you agree? On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Piaget Modeler <[email protected]> wrote: That is also true. That is why your knowledge representation has to accommodate both uses. Now we're getting to some REAL requirements. (Do you follow?) ~PM. Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 12:30:18 -0500 Subject: Re: [agi] Internal Representation From: [email protected] To: [email protected] A prediction may stand as a statement. It does not have to be part of an implication or inference.Jim On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Piaget Modeler <[email protected]> wrote: I would submit that "John Smith won the lottery" is neither a prediction nor an explanation. It is just a statement of fact which has a different structure. It can be included in a predictionas either the antecedent or consequent. A prediction has the form "If x then y", an explanation "y because x", which are both the same structure. This is my view of things. ~PM AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
