Linas, thanks for explaining so clearly what you mean...
On 09/01/2016 12:16 AM, Linas Vepstas wrote:
Observe that the triple above is an arrow: the tail of the arrow is "some subset of the atomspace", the head of the arrow is "the result of applying PLN rule X", and the shaft of the arrow is given a name: its "rule X".
Aha, I finally understand what you meant all these years!
I already pointed out that some of the worlds are "impossible" i.e. have a probability of zero. These can be discarded. But wait, there's more. Suppose that one of the possible worlds contains the statement "John Kennedy is alive" (with a very very high confidence) , while another one contains the statement "John Kennedy is dead" (with a very very high confidence). What I wish to claim is that, no matter what future PLN inferences might be made, these two worlds will never become confluent.
I don't think that's true. I believe they should at least be somewhat confluent, I hope at least, if not then PLN inference control is pathological. Sure you can't have John Kennedy being half-alive and half-dead but that is not what a probability distribution means. Ultimately the event of a probability space is a crisp set, that is why Ben suggested multi-set semantics over the SubSet formula when dealing with fuzzy concepts.
I can't comment on link-grammar since I don't understand it. Nil -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "opencog" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/57C96585.3020104%40gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
