Yes. I am starting to get very annoyed. Whenever I talk about CompositeTruthValue, which I did earlier, I get the big brushoff. Now, when I finally was able to sneak it back into the conversation, I once again get the big brushoff.
I am starting to get really angry about this. I am spending wayyy too much time writing these emails, and all I get is blank stares and the occasional snide remark back. This is just not that complicated, but as long as you do not bother to apply your considerable brainpower to all of this, the conversation is utterly completely stalled. I'm pretty angry right now. --linas On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 10:44 PM, Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> wrote: > Linas, > > On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Linas Vepstas <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Today, by default, with the way the chainers are designed, the various > > different atomspaces are *always* merged back together again (into one > > single, global atomspace), and you are inventing things like > "distributional > > TV" to control how that merge is done. > > > > I am trying to point out that there is another possibility: one could, if > > desired, maintain many distinct atomspaces, and only sometimes merge > them. > > So, for just a moment, just pretend you actually did want to do that. > How > > could it actually be done? Because doing it in the "naive" way is not > > practical. Well, there are several ways of doing this more efficiently. > > One way is to create a new TV, which stores the pairs (atomspace-id, > > simple-TV) Then, if you wanted to merge two of these "abstract" > atomspaces > > into one, you could just *erase* the atomspace-id. Just as easy as that > -- > > erase some info. You could even take two different (atomspace-id, > simple-TV) > > pairs and mash them into one distributional TV. > > I note that we used to have something essentially equivalent to this, > for basically this same reason..... > > It was called CompositeTruthValue, and was a truth value object that > contained mutliple truth values, indexed by a certain ID. The ID > was a version-ID not an atomspace-ID, but same difference... > > A dude named Linas Vepstas got rid of this mechanism, because he > (probably correctly) felt it was a poor software design ;) > > The replacement methodology is to use EmbeddedTruthValueLink and > ContextAnchorNode , as in the example > > Evaluation > PredicateNode "thinks" > ConceptNode "Bob" > ContextAnchorNode "123" > > EmbeddedTruthValueLink <0> > ContextAnchorNode "123" > Inheritance Ben sane > > which uses more memory but does not complicate the core code so much... > > -- Ben > > > > > -- > Ben Goertzel, PhD > http://goertzel.org > > Super-benevolent super-intelligence is the thought the Global Brain is > currently struggling to form... > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "link-grammar" 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/link-grammar. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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/CAHrUA36PPmUTY9EG2_EGNS8%3DUUnScRLzZQ8oOqMCrTMPWSDAAA%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
