Hi Nil,
> >> These same ideas should generalize to PLN: although PLN is itself a >> probabilistic logic, and I do not advocate changing that, the actual >> chaining process, the proof process of arriving at conclusions in PLN, >> cannot be, must not be. >> >> I hope the above pins down the source of confusion, when we talk about >> these things. The logic happening at the proof level, the ludics level, >> is very different from the structures representing real-world knowledge. >> > > Oh, it's a lot clearer then! But in the case of PLN inference control we > want to use meta-learning anyway, not "hacks" (sorry if I upset certain) > like linear logic or intuitionistic logic. Well, hey, that is like saying that 2+2=4 is a hack -- The ideas that I am trying to describe are significantly older than PLN, and PLN is not some magical potion that somehow is not bound by the rules of reality, that can in some supernatural way violate the laws of mathematics. > However, I feel an area where something similar to linear logic, etc, > might be very worthwhile thinking of is in estimating how much evidences > inference traces have in common, as to have the revision rule work > correctly. This is kinda the only way I manage to relate these > barely-understandable-word-soup-sounding-to-me abstract proposals to > PLN. Would really love to look deep into that once it becomes more > prioritized though. OK, so in the blog post, at what point did things get too abstract, and too hard to follow? --linas > > -- 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/CAHrUA37k1QEYSYB%2BEqzBh%2BWKV2wFuXhwsCO0nsFH0GwZH%2B2%2BiQ%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
