>> The problem of logical reasoning in natural language is a pattern recognition >> problem (like natural language recognition in general). For example:
>> - Frogs are green. Kermit is a frog. Therefore Kermit is green. >> - Cities have tall buildings. New York is a city. Therefore New York has >> tall buildings. >> - Summers are hot. July is in the summer. Therefore July is hot. >> After many examples, you learn the pattern and you can solve novel logic >> problems of the same form. Repeat for many different patterns. Your built in assumptions make you think that. There are NO readily obvious patterns is the examples you gave except on obvious example of standard logical inference. Note: a.. In the first clause, the only repeating words are green and Kermit. Maybe I'd let you argue the plural of frog. b.. In the second clause, the only repeating words are tall buildings and New York. I'm not inclined to give you the plural of city. There is also the minor confusion that tall buildings and New York are multiple words. c.. In the third clause, the only repeating words are hot and July. Okay, you can argue summers. d.. Across sentences, I see a regularity between the first and the third of "As are B. C is A. Therefore, C is B." Looks far more to me like you picked out one particular example of logical inference and called it pattern matching. I don't believe that your theory works for more than a few very small, toy examples. Further, even if it did work, there are so many patterns that approaching it this way would be computationally intractable without a lot of other smarts. ----- 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/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e
