--- James Ratcliff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Interesting points, but I believe you can get around alot of the problems > with two additional factors, > a. using either large quantities of quality text, (ie novels, newspapers) or > similar texts like newspapers. > b. using a interactive built in 'checker' system, assisted learning where > the AI could consult with humans in a simple way.
But that is not the problem I am trying to get around. A system that learns to solve logical word problems should be trainable on text like: - A greeb is a floogle. All floogles are blorg. Therefore... simply because it is something the human brain can do. > > Using something like this, you could check > "The moon is a dog" and see that it has a really low probabilty, and if > something else was possibly untrue, it could ask a few humans, and poll for > the answer > "Is the moon a dog?" > > This should allow for a large amount of basic information to be quickly > gathered, and of a fairly high quality. > > James > > Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- Charles D Hixson wrote: > > > Mark Waser wrote: > > > >> 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: > > > > > > * In the first clause, the only repeating words are green and > > > Kermit. Maybe I'd let you argue the plural of frog. > > > * 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. > > > * In the third clause, the only repeating words are hot and July. > > > Okay, you can argue summers. > > > * 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. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > It's worse than that. "Frogs are green." is a generically true > > statement, that isn't true in most particular cases. E.g., some frogs > > are yellow, red, and black without any trace of green on them that I've > > noticed. Most frogs may be predominately green (e.g., leopard frogs are > > basically green, but with black spots. > > > > Worse, although Kermit is identified as a frog, Kermit is actually a > > cartoon character. As such, Kermit can be run over by a tank without > > being permanently damaged. This is not true of actual frogs. > > > > OTOH, there *IS* a pattern matching going on. It's just not evident at > > the level of structure (or rather only partially evident). > > > > Were I to rephrase the sentences more exactly they would go something > > like this: > > Kermit is a representation of a frog. > > Frogs are typically thought of as being green. > > Therefore, Kermit will be displayed as largely greenish in overall hue, > > to enhance the representation. > > > > Note that one *could* use similar "logic" to deduce that Miss Piggy is > > more than 10 times as tall as Kermit. This would be incorrect. Thus, > > what is being discussed here is not mandatory characteristics, but > > representational features selected to harmonize an image with both it's > > setting and internal symbolisms. As such, only artistically selected > > features are chosen to highlight, and other features are either > > suppressed, or overridden by other artistic choices. What is being > > created is a "dreamscape" rather than a realistic image. > > > > On to the second example. Here again one is building a dreamscape, > > selecting harmonious imagery. Note that it's quite possible to build a > > dreamscape city where there are not tall buildings...or only one. > > (Think of the Emerald City of Oz. Or for that matter of the Sunset > > District of San Francisco. Facing in many directions you can't see a > > single building more than two stories tall.) But it's also quite > > realistic to imagine tall buildings. By specifying tall buildings, one > > filters out a different set of harmonious city images. > > > > What these patterns do is enable one to filter out harmonious images, > > etc. from the databank of past experiences. > > These are all valid criticisms. They explain why logical reasoning in > natural > language is an unsolved problem. Obviously simple string matching won't > work. > The system must also recognize sentence structure, word associations, > different word forms, etc. Doing this requires a lot of knowledge about > language and about the world. After those patterns are learned (and there > are > hundreds of thousands of them), then it will be possible to learn the more > complex patterns associated with reasoning. > > The other criticism is that the statements are not precisely true. (July is > cold in Australia). But the logic is still valid. It should be possible to > train a purely logical system on examples using obviously false statements, > like: > > - The moon is a dog. All dogs are made of green cheese. Therefore the moon > is made of green cheese. > > The reasoning is correct, but confusing to many people. This fact argues > (to > me anyway) that logical reasoning is not even a good model of human thought. > > > -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ----- > 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/?&; > > > > _______________________________________ > James Ratcliff - http://falazar.com > Looking for something... > > --------------------------------- > No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go > with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. > > ----- > 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/?&; -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- 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
