--- James Ratcliff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I believe that is just a simple rule that you can input in most systems, and
> it will match that point, but promgramming in each of those rules is a very
> costly affair.

Fortunately, natural language (unlike artificial language) has a structure
that allows rules to be learned, so you don't have to program them.  You only
need to program the learning algorithm and provide training data.


> 
> James
> 
> 
> Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> --- James Ratcliff  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  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/?&;
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________
> James Ratcliff - http://falazar.com
> Looking for something...
>             
> ---------------------------------
> Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles.
> Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.
> 
> -----
> 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

Reply via email to