On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 9:31 AM, YKY (Yan King Yin) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 8/5/08, Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> As I understand it, FOL is only Turing complete when >> predicates/relations/functions beyond the ones in the data are >> allowed. Would PLN naturally invent predicates, or would it need to be >> told to specifically? Is this what "concept creation" does? More >> concretely: if I gave PLN a series of data, and asked it to guess what >> the next item in the series would be, what sort of process would it >> employ? > > Prolog (and logic programming) is Turing complete, but FOL is not a > programming language so I'm not sure.
You are right, I should have said "FOL is turing complete within the right inference system [such as Prolog], but only when predicates/relations/functions beyond the ones in the data are allowed." [..] > > Also, note that the KR I'm using is actually called "first-order > Bayesian networks". I use FOL in discussions because it's easier to > understand. If I say "first-order Bayes net" more people would be > scratching their heads. So, you are not trying to create your own new probabilistic logic, you are just trying to develop 1st-order bayesian networks further? > > 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/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > ------------------------------------------- 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
