Alex, As Linas has often pointed out, the link grammar OpenCog uses is basically equivalent to pregroup grammar, which has been modeled explicitly using category theory (asymmetric monoidal categories etc.)
Lambda calculus is modeled by closed cartesian categories; and the algebra of sub-hypergraphs of a hypergraph can be modeled as a Heyting algebra in various ways (and one can put an intuitionistic probability distribution on this Heyting algebra)... I have been fiddling around with these math foundations a bunch in the last few weeks and will post some things on Arxiv in the next couple weeks... In practical terms, there are two initiatives related to this going on right now 1) Linas is working on using unsupervised (statistical) learning on a text corpus to infer a link grammar dictionary ... 2) Ruiting is working on this http://wiki.opencog.org/w/Link_Parse_to_Logic_via_Lojban (well she'll be taking a break for the next 2 weeks but then resuming Feb 5 ...) --Ben On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Alex <[email protected]> wrote: > Regarding NLP - I have always been suspicous about statistical methods of > NLP, it is something like subsymbolic methods of neural networks. Such > subsymbolic methods require other science to make explicit inference (about > results, about argumentation) possible - there is connection science for > neural networks but I don't know about similar tool for statistics. My ideal > is NLP along lines of article "On Deep Computational Formalization of > Natural Language" (available via Google search) and I wonder why this path > has not been pursued so far. Lack of developed suitable logic (deontic event > calculus in this case) is one explanation. There is clearly need for > universal logic (as considered by Springer journal Logica Universalis) and I > guess that categorical logic may become such logic - it already formalizes > predicate and modal logics and similar formalization of probabilistic and > adaptable logic (Strasser) (nonmonotonic) may be discovered in future (I > hope, though I have no idea about direction how this can be done. > Coalgebraic logic unifies modal and probabilistic logics but I had had hard > time understanding it). Then it wil be possible to do formalization of > natural language (in all its modes - starting from scientific reasoning and > ending with emotional utterances) in such way. > > -- > 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/cf6a0d01-b98e-4fda-9473-7aeb24bc916e%40googlegroups.com. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Ben Goertzel, PhD http://goertzel.org “I tell my students, when you go to these meetings, see what direction everyone is headed, so you can go in the opposite direction. Don’t polish the brass on the bandwagon.” – V. S. Ramachandran -- 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/CACYTDBfTR95LAfJadJ5gNL%3DKB%3DTheFWSr00ZVwYkseue0yZt1A%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
