Hello, Amirouche Boubekki :)

May I ask, in your opinion, how would triple store be suitable for
describing arbitrary algorithms? Possibility to describe algorithms, as a
dynamic side of some AGI knowledge base, is a must have if we want the
knowledge base system to be complete. I think hypergraphs are handling
algorithms like some lisp based languages do - a few carefully selected
builtin functions (possibly something like lambda expressions), and we are
ready to go. On the other side, triple store is also fine for describing
structured data, but I have a trouble imagining triple store based system
describing algorithms in a *neat way*.

Thank you for your time,
Ivan V.


2018-02-19 20:56 GMT+01:00 Linas Vepstas <linasveps...@gmail.com>:

> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 12:25 AM, 'Nil Geisweiller' via opencog
> <opencog@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> > On 02/18/2018 11:22 PM, Linas Vepstas wrote:
> >>
> >
> > OK, get it, so it seems it would work except for truth values and
> generally
> > all valuations. I suppose a way around that would be to insert
> valuations in
> > the atomspace (turn protoatoms into atoms).
>
> The valuations (as generalized truth values) are meant to to be
> rapidly mutatable,
> avoiding the overhead of the atomspace, and all the associated klunkiness.
> So
> one should only "freeze" them into atoms with caution and trepidation
> - once frozen,
> they become hard or impossible to thaw.
>
> In my mind, the concept of valuations is one of the more important
> innovations
> in the atomspace: a clear distinction between two different kinds of
> "data", having
> two different kinds of properties, behaving in different characteristic
> ways.
>
> Is it the correct split? I dunno - The choice of "valuation" is
> inspired by model
> theory and set theory, the Löwenheim–Skolem theorem etc. and so, in that
> part
> of the world, the distinction between atoms and valuations is central.
> Something
> similar can be said about Bayesian probability, where you make a clean
> split between
> the thing you are talking about (the "atom") and the probability of it
> happening
> (the "truth value")
>
> So that's the general argument of why atoms and valuations are different
> from
> one another - its to allow an interplay that is already recognized in
> other branches
> of mathematics, and has now been ported over to knowledge representation.
>
>
> -- Linas
>
> --
> cassette tapes - analog TV - film cameras - you
>
> --
> 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 opencog+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to opencog@googlegroups.com.
> 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/CAHrUA37RTnsUHC5KxN9TnTcg%2BgsEFxBGu%2Bu_XHKT5emgTXmL7w%
> 40mail.gmail.com.
> 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 opencog+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to opencog@googlegroups.com.
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/CAB5%3Dj6W%2BMOoi_6pTxYyiqiuWiQWo1nRDZa%3Dp%2Bg1f%2BmEoD9kXVA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to