On 8/10/06, Pei Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think predicate logic plus probability is the way to go, but
> won't try to convince you by email. I've said more in my writings.
> won't try to convince you by email. I've said more in my writings.
True, "standard" predicate logic does not have inferences using induction, abduction, and analogy. But these can be added to the framework of probabilistic predicate logic.
Your argument seems to be that the confirmation paradox makes predicate logic inappropriate, and so you reverted to using term logic. Actually, predicate logic can handle the term-logic kind of stuff by using appropriate quantifiers such as "there exists some".
> Of course NARS can express much more than just "P is Q". I mentioned that in
> http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/farg/peiwang/PUBLICATION/wang.cognitive_mathematical.pdf
> and gave more details in my other publications, as well as the demo
> examples.
How can you express "John kicks Mary" in term logic?
YKY
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
