On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 1:18 AM, Nil Geisweiller <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 05/24/2018 07:24 AM, Linas Vepstas wrote:
>
>> Could this indexing be made lazy?
>>
>>
>> No, its fundamental to what the definition of the atomspace is. Its the
>> only way that you can have a single, unique (Concept "cat") in the system.
>>
> But the notion of uniqueness is only relevant when you query something
> about cat, like it's incoming set, etc.
>
If you say
(cog-set-tv! (Concept "cat") (stv 0.6 0.7))
and then later on, you say
(cog-set-tv! (Concept "cat") (stv 0.8 0.9))
how do you imagine that the system knows that this is the same "cat", and
not two different instances of "cat" floating around in the system?
Answer: they are both the same atom because both statements cause that atom
to be fetched from the same atomspace. There's no magic here. There is an
underlying mechanism that makes this possible.
>
> Now regarding memory management, yes it's true, although I guess it could
> still be lazy and only index when the memory grows too much.
>
No, you have to index immediately, because otherwise the memory has to be
freed instantly, on the spot. Either there is at least one valid pointer
to an Atom, or that memory is freed. It is undesirable to have a block of
memory with zero valid pointers to it -- this is called a memory leak. A
block of memory with zero pointers to it is lost, forever and ever.
--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 [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/CAHrUA36xhnC%3DAK5CQcx8eZEqFLMWcAhVHRDmTMeRB4wzkhHBkQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
