Hi,
I think someone suggested a while ago that positive and total counts be
the main data stored in a tv, and the probability would be calculated on
the fly when requested. The API could offer methods to access and modify
just the positive count, and so if the total count is let undefined the
probability would be NAN. This could be done in a way that maintains
compatibility with the existing TV API, so there would be no need to
introduce another TV type. Not that introducing a new TV type is bad,
but I feel it is both sufficiently simple and useful across types that
we might just put it in the base class. What do you think?
Regarding the total count, I see what you mean, on an abstract level at
least. So let's put the requirement: whenever an reasoning rule can be
agnostic of the total count and some if its premises have undefined
total count, the rule should be able to propagate just the positive count.
Do these 2 points above entirely capture your needs?
On 10/20/2016 05:57 PM, Ben Goertzel wrote:
Whereas, the InheritanceLink after M2I means
"X is a member of mouse, implies (extensionally and intensionally) X
is a member of the set of things that cats eat"
Yep, that's what I read too. Hmm, this 2 layers (elements of elements)
inclusion gives me the creep. ;-) But I'm not sure why, hopefully
experimentation will help us to get this straight, and this is coming soon.
Nil
I.e. the M2I rule in its currently implemented form relies on the
interpretation of
ConceptNode "cat"
as equivalent to
SatisfyingSet
MemberLink
$X
ConceptNode "cat"
No, it is the count of (SetLink (Concept "Ben")), which is 1. Or if that
weird M2I as currently implemented rule is correct, it is the count of
It's the count of
ConceptNode "cat"
which is the count of
SatisfyingSet
MemberLink
$X
ConceptNode "cat"
Agreed. Ultimately I think we could offer a positive_evidence setter. But I
still don't understand the need for propagating positive_evidence without
knowing the total count.
It's because the same positive-evidence value makes sense in the
context of multiple different choices for the total count...
-- Ben
--
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/5809A644.3090504%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
