I think this would be fun for Amen to work on, however, he has a lot of stuff to do, so IMO if you could take care of this rapidly it would be great...
ben On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 4:27 PM, 'Nil Geisweiller' via opencog <[email protected]> wrote: > Of course I'm happy if Amen or someone else wants to give a shot, but maybe > he/she has already too much stuff on his/her plate, and I or Linas will be > faster since we know well that part of the code. Again let me know. > > Nil > > > On 10/21/2016 11:23 AM, Nil Geisweiller wrote: >> >> On 10/21/2016 08:44 AM, Ben Goertzel wrote: >>> >>> Yes, those 2 points would satisfy our current needs... thx... >> >> >> Looking at the code, I'm thinking it's gonna be simpler to create a new >> tv type, possibly inheriting from SimpleTV. >> >> That is because the base TV class is completely abstract, adding the >> methods is only gonna force other sub-classes to implement this, which >> is a pain, although might be what we want, but since its usage is not >> entirely sure to me at that point I suppose we should go with the >> simpler stuff first. >> >> So I intend to create an EvidenceCountTruthValue (possibly inheriting >> from SimpleTruthValue) + scheme binding. That should cover your current >> needs. Let me know otherwise. >> >> Nil >> >>> >>> On Oct 21, 2016 1:23 PM, "Nil Geisweiller" <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[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/5809D187.1040003%40gmail.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 "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/CACYTDBfSoA0fnqQ2DXiRL%3DCEnukjG2u1EB086q6TeRzKVnWHig%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
