>> The distinction I've been making all along is between human-readable formats >> like predicate calculus, SQL and XML, versus non-human-readable ones like >> vectors of floats, binary machine code, graphs of unlabeled nodes etc. I'm >> arguing for the former (and in particular, for something in the predicate >> calculus family, though if anyone thinks they have something better I'm all >> ears - the important thing is to choose _some_ good, flexible, expressive >> human-readable format and use it as the canonical format for the whole >> system).
Human-readable is an interesting term . . . . Is a picture human-readable? I think that you would argue not (in this context, obviously). All of the things that you name as non-human-readable certainly can be converted (albeit, extremely inefficiently) to a human readable format (sufficient to reproduce the item in question with no further information -- given sufficient time). Arguably, the *only* human readable format is a human language (in which you can then explain predicate calculus, SQL, and XML as well as everything you label as non-human-readable). ----- Original Message ----- From: Russell Wallace To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 12:59 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Logical representation On 3/13/07, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Russell is conflating concept names (a.k.a. symbols) and variables. And a longer list of other things than I care to enumerate. The distinction I've been making all along is between human-readable formats like predicate calculus, SQL and XML, versus non-human-readable ones like vectors of floats, binary machine code, graphs of unlabeled nodes etc. I'm arguing for the former (and in particular, for something in the predicate calculus family, though if anyone thinks they have something better I'm all ears - the important thing is to choose _some_ good, flexible, expressive human-readable format and use it as the canonical format for the whole system). Personally, I would just have the system autonumber each concept as the system generates it and then have some serious resources devoted to determining and maintaining a set of "friendly names" (which, of course, depends upon your audience, level of abstraction, etc.) for each concept. That's a good approach to have in one's toolbox for machine-generated content, yep, though I've primarily been discussing human-generated content. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303 ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
