On 02/11/2007, Linas Vepstas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 12:56:14PM -0700, Matt Mahoney wrote: > > --- Jiri Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Oct 31, 2007 8:53 PM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Natural language is a fundamental part of the knowledge > > > base, not something you can add on later. > > > > > > I disagree. You can start with a KB that contains concepts retrieved > > > from a well structured non-NL input format only, get the thinking > > > algorithms working and then (possibly much later) let the system to > > > focus on NL analysis/understanding or build some > > > NL-to-the_structured_format translation tools. > > > > Well, good luck with that. Are you aware of how many thousands of times > > this > > approach has been tried? You are wading into a swamp. Progress will be > > rapid > > at first. > > Yes, and in the first email I wrote, that started this thread, I stated, > more or less: "yes, I am aware that many have tried, and that its a > swamp, and can anyone elucidate why?" And, so far, no one as been able > to answer that question, even as they firmly assert that surely it is a > swamp. Nor has anyone attempted to posit any mechanisms that avoid that > swamp, other than thought bubbles that state things like "starting from > a clean slate, my system will be magic". >
Here is my take on why I think it is a swamp. I hypothesize natural language has the same expressiveness as a recursive enumerable langauges [1]. Which means you need a machine from the space of Turing machines to recognise all possible strings. Further on from this, natural language also evolves in time, which means you need to move through the space of Turing machines in order to find programs that correctly parse it. Moving through the space of Turing machines is fundementally experimental (you can move through subspaces of it such as deciders[2] with proofs, but that limits you to not being able to recognise some strings). Experimenting in the space of Turing Machines can lead to deleterious programs to the system being created. So creating a system that has a stable(ish) goal whilst experimenting is a necessary precursor to trying to solve the NL problem. All these statements assume memory bounded versions of these things, and are tentative until I can find theories that cope with this. Will Pearson [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursively_enumerable_language [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decider ----- 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=8660244&id_secret=60712161-687415
