On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 3:41 PM, YKY (Yan King Yin)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Take an example:
> S1: AGIers are usually nerds
> S2: Nerds are usually socially awkward
> -----------------------------------------------------
> S: AGIers are probably socially awkward
>
> Suppose the frequencies of S, S1 and S2 are f, f1 and f2, resp.
>
> If you draw the Venn diagram, you'd find that one piece is missing if
> we want to deduce f, namely the portion of AGIers who are not nerds
> but who are socially awkward.
Venn diagram assumes a purely extensional intepretation of the
measurement (call it frequency, proability, or whatever), as
indicating partial subset relation. Since in NARS truth value
(frequncy and confidence) include both extensional and intensional
factors, they cannot be understood using Venn diagram.
> In your paper you seem to suggest a heuristic rule:
> f = f1 f2 / (f1 + f2 - f1 f2)
>
> I'm not saying the rule is bad, just wondering what kind of
> assumptions you're making?
That is an old version. The current version simply uses
f = f1 f2
and the derivation process can be found in my book, mainly pages 78-83.
I don't call it a "heuristic rule", since that name suggests it as an
approximation of a "real rule" (according to probability theory or
other well-established theory). NARS is not based on probability
theory, so its rules are not approximations of anything else.
Pei
-------------------------------------------
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=106510220-47b225
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
