Ben,
On 06/19/2017 07:49 PM, Ben Goertzel wrote:
In the PLN case, if we take an example possible pattern like "two
deductions in a row, involving associated entities, are often useful"
that would look like
A ==> B, B==>C |- A==>C
A==>C, C ==> D |- A ==>D
HebbianLink (D,B)
useful(A==>D)
So the first two of these 4 lines are going to be embedded in a single
ExecutionOutputLink, I guess.... Then the other two will be their own
separate links in the Atomspace...
Indeed, so it would be a 4-gram pattern (if I understand correctly).
Suppose this pattern occurs 10 times in the Atomspace. Each of these
times, we will have different Atoms in the slots for A, B, C, D. Some
of these may be complex, e.g. we might have in one case
A equals
MemberLink
VariableNode $X
SatisfyingSet
EvaluationLink
PredicateNode "piece of poop"
ListLink
$X
ConceptNode "cheese doodle"
or whatever... In this case the fact that there's a VariableNode $X
in the interior of A doesn't matter.
Indeed. If the implication A==>B is an ImplicationScopeLink, the pattern
miner should abstract that into
QuoteLink
ImplicationScopeLink
UnquoteLink
VariableNode "$variable-declaration"
UnquoteLink
VariableNode "$A"
UnquoteLink
VariableNode "$B"
and it doesn't matter what variables appear inside A.
Nil, it will take some work, but maybe it's worthwhile for you to
create a test Atomspace in which my above example pattern
A ==> B, B==>C |- A==>C
A==>C, C ==> D |- A ==>D
HebbianLink (D,B)
useful(A==>D)
What do you mean exactly by "useful(A==>D)"?
If you mean that A==>D is a pattern abstracting previously successful
proved backward chainer targets, then maybe we want the pattern miner to
output conditional patterns, so that the resulting pattern wouldn't be a
SatisfyingSetScopeLink but rather say an ImplicationScopeLink
So that we'd ask the following patter miner query
ImplicationScopeLink
V
Y
useful(X)
where V, X and Y are meta-pattern-matcher variables as they represent
patterns that the pattern miner should come up with (of course all this
should be properly quoted), which looks very much like a Cognitive
Schematic. So in fact inference control would turn a bit into a
specialized OpenPsi process, but perhaps I digress...
is a surprising pattern, and in which some of the examples of A, B, C
or D have some complexity to them (some internal quantified
variables).
Having a more "real" example like this might help avoid any confusion
and aid Shujing in getting the pattern miner to work on PLN inference
histories in a useful way
Sure, I'll see what I can come up with. I'm also gonna keep studying the
pattern miner because some stuff are still a bit abstract to me.
Nil
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/0689639a-e9a1-1967-a938-1bba6b9ca339%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
