> I think it's fine that you use the term "atom" in your own way. The > important thing is, whatever the objects that you attach probabilities > to, that class of objects should correspond to *propositions* in FOL. > From there it would be easier for me to understand your ideas.
Well, no, we attach probabilities to terms as well as to relationships ... and to expressions with free as well as bound variables... You can map terms and free-variable expressions into propositions if you want to, though... for instance the term cat has probability P(cat) which you could interpret as P(x is a cat | x is in my experience base) and the free-variable expression eats(x, mouse) has probability P( eats(x,mouse) ) which can be interpreted as P( eats(x,mouse) is true | x is in my experience base) However these propositional representations are a bit awkward and are not the way to represent things for the PLN rules to be simply applied... it is nicer by far to leave the experiential semantics implicit... -- Ben G ------------------------------------------- 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=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
