Hi Ben, On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> wrote:
> So e.g. if we find X+Y is roughly equal to Z in the domain > of semantic vectors, > But what Jesus is saying (and what we say in our paper, with all that fiddle-faddle about categories) is precisely that while the concept of addition is kind-of-ish OK for meanings it can be even better if replaced with the correct categorial generalization. That is, addition -- the plus sign --is a certain speciific morphism, and that this morphism, the addition of vectors, has the unfortunate property of being commutative, whereas we know that language is non-commutative. The stuff about pre-group grammars is all about identifying exactly which morphism it is that correctly generalizes the addition morphism. That addition is kind-of OK is why word2vec kind-of works. But I think we can do better. Unfortunately, the pressing needs of having to crunch data, and to write the code to crunch that data, prevents me from devoting enough time to this issue for at least a few more weeks or a month. I would very much like to clarify the theoretical situation here, but need to find a chunk of time that isn't taken up by email and various mundane tasks. --linas -- 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/CAHrUA37b-he38CEw39DmqB3_KH-Pms8EEaAF-wNdsdddgo51EA%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
