> If by "probabilistic justification for NARS" you mean the current NARS > truth-value functions can be justified even according to the common > semantics of probability theory,
Yes. > by treating terms as sets, > inheritance as partial subset, and frequency as the extent of partial > inclusion, No. > then I don't think it is possible. If you read the definitions I attached, you'll see that I am not taking inheritance to be set-membership. (It is fine if you didn't take time to read it, time is always limited.) Instead, I've taken A=>B to be the probability distribution that is average between p(A=>C|B=>C) and p(C=>B|C=>A). --Abram Demski ------------------------------------------- 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=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
