Jim, even that isn't an obvious event. You don't know what is background and what is not. You don't even know if there is an object or not. You don't know if anything moved or not. You can make some observations using predefined methods and then see if you find matches... then hypothesize about the matches...
It all has to be learned and figured out through reasoning. That's why I asked what you meant by definitive events. Nothing is really definitive. It is all hypothesized in a non-monotonic manner. Dave On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:22 AM, David Jones <[email protected]>wrote: > >> What do you mean by definitive events? >> > > > I was just trying to find a way to designate obsverations that would be > reliably obvious to a computer program. This has something to do with the > assumptions that you are using. For example if some object appeared against > a stable background and it was a different color than the background, it > would be a definitive observation event because your algorithm could detect > it with some certainty and use it in the definition of other more > complicated events (like occlusion.) Notice that this example would not > necessarily be so obvious (a definitive event) using a camera, because there > are a number of ways that an illusion (of some kind) could end up as a data > event. > > I will try to reply to the rest of your message sometime later. > Jim Bromer > *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <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=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
