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])`

## Advertising

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.