Hi Apil, On 11/07/2016 03:39 PM, Apil Tamang wrote:
Hi All, Reading through the book on 'Probabilistic Logic Networks' which is posted on http://goertzel.org/PLN_BOOK_6_27_08.pdf. I think I'm making okay progress on the concepts on this book so far so good. There's just this one little area which has me completely stumped:Chapter 3, Page 45: ''' The Stripedog-recognizing predicate, call it FStripedog, has a SatisfyingSet that we may denote simply as stripedog, defined by ExtensionalEquivalence Member $X stripedog AND Evaluation FStripedog $X Evaluation isIdentifier ($X, FStripedog) '''
Extensional equivalence means that you only consider the members of the concepts in consideration, as opposed to their properties, which would be an intensional equivalence.
I'm not sure what is the isIdentifier predicate here, but don't get stuck over it, it's not important, if we ignore it, this merely becomes
ExtensionalEquivalence Member $X Stripdog Evaluation FStripdog $X which BTW in today's atomese/scheme would be written (ExtensionalEquivalenceScope (Member (Variable "$X") (Concept "Stripdog")) (Evaluation (Predicate "FStripdog") (Variable "$X"))) The scope being used to bind the variable $X to the extensional equivalence. Hope it's clearer. Nil
What is this block of PLN construct (or expression) trying to say, or what does it represent? Obviously, this is not a definition of FStripedog, nor is it a definition of the satisfying-set for it (which is defined by /stripedog/). It may simply be that I don't understand exactly what the High-Order Relationship: 'ExtensionalEquivalence' means. I went back in the earlier pages and could not really locate how this HOR formally defined. I feel like this expression somehow is trying to formalize what constitutes as a satisfying-set for predicate: FStripedog, but I couldn't be sure. Thanks for any help. P.S: An added bonus would be to let me know how the concepts in the PLN book relate to open-cog. I think most of this material maybe within the scope of the MOSES system, but somehow I feel this material is critical to opencog because (I think I read somewhere that) this is what gives opencog its innate ability to reason, deduct, and infer. How does the innate opencog reasoning/inference abilities depart from the more complex array of PLN logics available in MOSES ? Maybe I'm not even thinking right.. sorry about the verbosity. -- 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] <mailto:[email protected]>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] <mailto:[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/0295afd3-af30-41d1-acae-22a85e08df9d%40googlegroups.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/0295afd3-af30-41d1-acae-22a85e08df9d%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. 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/5820ADD5.2010704%40gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
