On 17 October 2010 18:20, Ben Goertzel <b...@goertzel.org> wrote: >> In other words, using formal grammar actually makes it harder to establish >> the connection at the NL-logic interface. IE, it is harder to translate NL >> sentences to formal grammar than to formal logic. >> >> KY > > Quite the opposite, actually. > > Translating an NL sentence to a *set* of grammatical trees, > representing syntactically possible parses, is almost a solved > problem. E.g. the Stanford parser or the link parser do that. > > Then, translating each of these grammatical trees into a *set* of > formal logic expressions, each representing a possible semantic > interpretation of the tree, is a partially-solved problem. E.g. > OpenCog's RelEx and RelEx2Frame components and Cyc's NL subsystem both > do that (in different ways), though not perfectly. > > So based on the current state of the art, it seems that turning NL > into a formal grammar (e.g. a dependency grammar) is significantly > less problematic than turning NL into logic, because forming the logic > representation requires resolving additional ambiguity, beyond that > which must be resolved to form the formal-grammar representation
Agree; but would like to add several remarks: --part of the difficulty of applying "logic" of NL is the need to handle spatial reasoning (A is next to B and B is next to C therefore ...? C is not far from A") -- part of the difficulty of applying "logic" of NL is the need to handle more abstract reasoning (A is the major of B and majors are people therefore B is a person) (opencyc does this ... not badly) -- Some philosophers of mathematics e.g. Carlo cellucci (see "18 unconventional essays on the nature of mathematics") will stridently point out that, while classical logic is the format in which proofs are stated, it is not at all the method by which mathematicians generate new ideas -- they use reasoning by analogy, by allegory, by induction, and many others, to generate hypothesis which might be possible solutions to problems. I think that we should realize that the same techniques should be applied in AGI: we use reasoning by analogy not because it gives formally correct answers, but because it generates reasonable hypothesis which may or may not be "true", but which can be examined in greater detail to see if they are true. These other, "non-rigorous" reasoning methods are all parts of what we might call "intuition" -- a set of hard-to-explain reasons why we think something might be true -- which must then be subjected to more rigorous analysis to see if yet more evidence can be found. In short, real-life, just like mathematics, is all about problem-solving and not theorem-proving (which is the last step of creating math, not the first). --linas ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/8660244-d750797a Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
