On 8/5/08, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Jeez, there is NO concept that is not dependent on context. There is NO
concept that is not infinitely fuzzy and open-ended in itself, period -
which is the principal reason why language is and has to be grounded
(although that needs demonstration).
I see...
My current approach is to use fuzzy rules to model these concepts. In some
cases it seems to work but in other cases it seems problematic...
For example I can give a definition of the concept "chair":
chair(X) :-
X has leg #1,
X has leg #2,
X has leg #3,
X has leg #4,
X has a horizontal seat area,
X has a vertical back area,
leg #1 is connected to seat at position #1,
etc,
etc....
But what if a chair has one leg missing? Using fuzzy logic (fuzzy AND), the
missing leg will result in a fuzzy value close to 0, which is not quite
right.
Probabilistic logic is also inappropriate. I know *every* time that a chair
missing a leg is "somewhat" a chair -- there is no probability involved
here.
YKY
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=108809214-a0d121
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
