In my mental model of the world, it would be slightly less awkward if we kept the pair (pos, neg) instead of the pair (pos, total) -- its not much of a difference, but it helps maintain symmetry for as long as possible. (e.g. in the handling of NotLink's and other situations that could invert or alter the meaning of one or both of these numbers.)
--linas On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 4:07 AM, 'Nil Geisweiller' via opencog < [email protected]> wrote: > Here it is > > https://github.com/opencog/atomspace/pull/956 > > the scheme binding takes both positive and total counts in its > constructor, cause I didn't know how to make it optional, however the total > count is only considered defined if equal or above the positive count. > > Amen, needless to say feel free to modify any of this according to your > needs. > > Nil > > > On 10/22/2016 06:05 AM, Ben Goertzel wrote: > >> 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. >>> >> >> >> >> > -- > 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/ms > gid/opencog/580DCF48.4000603%40gmail.com. > > 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/CAHrUA34i5Qh6%2B43q%2BTgcG5pjsmtgrZ99Hj2VBOTJKwxtPtD%2BPA%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
