On 5/7/08, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No. But it hasn't stopped people from trying. > > The meaning of sentences and even paragraphs depends on context that is > not captured in logic. Consider the following examples, where a different > word is emphasized in each case: > > - I didn't steal that. > - I DIDN'T steal that. > - I didn't STEAL that. > - I didn't steal THAT. > > And the following where you can guess the emphasis by context. > > - I didn't steal that. He did. > - I didn't steal that. It is still there. > - I didn't steal that. I borrowed it. > - I didn't steal that. I stole this.
Contexts can be captured in logic. For example, John McCarthy's method is to use the special predicate "ist": ist(x, c) means that x is true in the context of c Your example of emphasis may be dealt with using multiple logical formulae. An additional formula may state that a certain word (or concept) is being emphasized. I wish to have a standard for the *surface* translation of NL to logic. Which means that the resulting logical forms are still open to interpretation within rich contexts. Logic can deal with almost everything, depending on how much effort you put in it =) YKY ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
