On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 4:50 AM, YKY (Yan King Yin) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sorry, I meant, the definition of NARS confidence is compatible with > probability, but NARS confidence as used in NARS, defies probability > laws. I intend to use NARS confidence in a way compatible with > probability... not sure if it'll work out as intended...
I'm pretty sure it won't, as I argued in several publications, such as http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/wang.confidence.pdf and the book. Your paper contains some interesting ideas, as well as some major issues. Sorry I don't have the time to write a detailed review (which could be longer than the paper itself), but I've raised some of them in my previous comments to your posts. In summary, I don't think it is a good idea to mix B, P, and Z. As Ben said, the key is semantics, that is, what is measured by your truth values. I prefer a unified treatment than a hybrid, because the former is semantically consistent, while the later isn't. I guess you won't be convinced by this short comment, but you'll see what I mean after trying your theory on various concrete examples. Pei ------------------------------------------- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
