Glen wrote:
> And if you tell it that
> there are only, say, 10 possible answers, it will _merely_ produce one
> of those prescribed 10 possible answers.
>
You could say that about an employee, too, but that doesn't give much
insight into what that person might actually be able to do.
> (I live for the day when I ask
> a computer: "Is this true or false?" And it answers: "Neither, it's
> _blue_!" ;-)
Computers typically don't do that, except in paraphrasing/concept
extraction expert systems (e.g. Cyc), because people don't typically
want them to do that. For example, it's clear when this Java program is
compiled that the compiler knows what `color' really is.
enum Color { Blue, Red }
public class Test {
static void main (String args[] ) {
Color color = Color.Blue;
if (color == true) {
System.out.println ("true!");
}
}
}
One easy way to let that go is to switch to a dynamically typed
language, where logical inconsistencies are dealt with in a case by case
basis by the programmer. (Presumably until the programmer can `see' how
things should fit together.)
As far as detecting (supposedly) ill-posed questions goes, if you are
willing to put aside the complex matter of natural language processing,
it seems to me it's a matter of similarity search against a set
propositions, and then engaging in a dialog of generalization and
precisification with the user to identify an unambiguous and agreeable
form for the question that has appropriate answers.
Marcus
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
