Yes, those 2 points would satisfy our current needs... thx... On Oct 21, 2016 1:23 PM, "Nil Geisweiller" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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/CACYTDBeveKYR6CSupoCgDUabfQq%2B%3DPG1jOiwn-zyZgOwhQ8AbQ%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
