Hi,

I wonder if the order of arguments in intensional inheritance shouldn't be swapped. Let me recall the definitions of the various inheritances (according to the PLN book [and coincidingly the opencog wiki])


1. Extensional Inheritance

ExtInh A B

is equivalent to

SubSet A B

2. Intensional Inheritance

IntInh A B

is equivalent to

ExtInh A_{PAT} B_{PAT}

where A_{PAT} is the (fuzzy) set of patterns of A (i.e. super sets of A, that have discriminative power and low complexity).

3. Mixed Inheritance

Inh A B

is equivalent to

Or
  ExtInh A B
  IntInh A B

Here's the problem, if A intensional inherits from B, then it means that A tends to have less patterns than B, meaning A is as abstract as B or more, or equivalently B is as specialized as A or more.

However, in average the more something is specialized, the smaller its extension will be. Thus it is expected that

ExtInh A B

will tend to be correlated with

IntInh B A

and anti-correlated with

IntInh A B

For that reason I think either the definition of mixed inheritance should be redefined into

Or
  ExtInh A B
  IntInh B A

or the definition of intensional inheritance should be redefined into

ExtInh B_{PAT} A_{PAT}

Otherwise mixed inheritance will tend to be always half true, in average regardless of A and B, because of the anti-correlation tendency between ExtInh A B and IntInh A B.

Nil

--
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/2cdf3d5b-fb0e-ac2a-c5d6-72c4a7cff0ba%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to