On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Daniel Gross <[email protected]> wrote:
> In context of A one morphism may hold, in context B another -- and you
> indicated two kinds of contexts, ) domains (swimming, rowing) and
> human-introspective-valueladen interpretive context.
To return to Alex's original question, there was a question of how to
represent knowledge in a computer. So, for opencog, a very miniscule
subset of the knowledge graph might be:
ContextLink
ConceptNode "swimming"
EvalutaionLink
PredicateNode "catch"
PhysicalMotorMovementLink
PositionLink...
VelocityLink....
that's the general idea. The above is actually a rather poor design for
representing that knowledge: instead of position and velocity, it should be
about hand and wrist. Instead of PredicateNode "catch" it should be
PredicateNode "catch as taught by Mark", with additional links to Mark and
why his technique differs from the catch as taught by coach Ted. So this
simplistic graph representation blows up out of control very rapidly.
Which is why it cannot be hand-authored: its why the system must
automatically discern and learn such structures.
BTW, in opencog, any two-element link is a "morphism"
SomeLink
SomeNode "source"
OtherNode "target"
Its OK to think of that as an arrow from source to target. But its also OK
to think about it as a binary tree, with "SomeLink" being the root, and the
two nodes being the leaves. So there are multiple ways to diagram these
things.
--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/CAHrUA36-HaBRczgM-fLq54EtLpDFB29a-Fb1GNqCg%3DAqvshhbg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
