Hi Johannes,
On 1/9/19 6:18 PM, Johannes Castner wrote:
with general statements that have one simple truth value (for now I'm
setting the secondary parameter always to 1 but that can be easily
PLN rules as currently implemented do not support well confidence
anyway. It is a work in progress. Basically dealing with second order
probabilities, as opposed to relying on crude heuristics, is costly to
compute and nontrivial to implement. But we're getting there, for
instance the URE control policy explicitly deals with second order
distributions, not PLN yet.
There's five people:
john =Concept john
mike =Concept mike
judy=Concept judy
anne=Concept Anne
george= Concept george
One of them will win some contest: Concept contest
Winner is:
george will-win (stv 0.1 1)
mike will win (stv 0.2 1)
john will win (stv 0.2 1)
judy will win (stv 0.1 1)
anne will win (stv 0.3 1)
george will win (stv 1-p(all-the-other-ones) 1)
you've repeated george, I suppose you meant
anne will win (stv 1-others 1)
How do I insure that there's a statement, like will win and 5 outcomes,
the probabilities of which always add to 1, such that if one probability
changes all others will automatically adjust?
PLN doesn't offer that out-of-the-box. Roman Treutlein is working on a
generalization of Truth Value that will make it possible to manipulate
second order distribution over any domain, not just [0,1]. Till it's
ready you need to represent that as atoms in the atomspace.
So for instance you could represent each probability of winning of
each candidate (except anne)
Inheritance <0.1 1>
Concept "win"
Concept "george"
...
Inheritance <0.1 1>
Concept "win"
Concept "judy"
Then that candidates are disjoint.
And <0 1>
Concept "george"
Concept "mike"
...
And <0 1>
Concept "judy"
Concept "anne"
Then that all candidates are subsets of win.
Inheritance <1 1>
Or
Concept "george"
...
Concept "anne"
Concept "win"
then I suppose, though I haven't tried, PLN could infer that
Inheritance <0.4 1>
Concept "win"
Concept "anne"
If you want to be general, you could axiomatize the notion of
partition and then, to be efficient, write a rule especially for it.
Also, do you think that there's a simpler way than the way that I have
started to code for users to be able to make general statements with
probabilities determined in a type of market?
It's hard to tell, there are many ways to represent things. To really
help I would need to carefully read your example.
Quick remark,
two-are-fast
seems ill-formed, LambdaLink only takes 1 or 2 outgoings, the first
one for the variable declaration, the second for the pattern (if used
in the context of the pattern matcher) or function (if directly
evaluated), however in your example it takes 3. I suppose you mean
BindLink, not LambdaLink.
I know that these are a lot of questions and I apologize ahead of time!
Happy to help. If you can break down your example, or shrink to a
minimal size, yet still capturing the essence of what you want to
express, it would help.
Nil
Thank you!
Johannes
On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 7:28:45 AM UTC, Nil wrote:
Hi Johannes,
On 12/10/18 6:48 PM, Johannes Castner wrote:
> ; all users have an account
> (EvaluationLink
> account
> (ListLink
> User
> )
> )
note that you don't need to wrap the argument with a ListLink if
there's only one, you might write
(EvaluationLink
account
User)
> How do I say that an account has points in it, that can be
updated and
Depends on what you mean "has points in it". `account` is a predicate
so it indeed can have stuff in it by using `EvaluationLink` as you did
with `User`, which says `User` is in `account`. If `account` where a
concept, then you could equivalently (or isomorphically equivalently)
write
(MemberLink
User
account)
> that a user has that account etc? I'm sorry, I'm still rather
new to
> Atomese and I've been trying to figure this out but I'm seriously
stuck.
> Please help!
It's not clear to me what you want to express. If you write it in FOL
we'll definitely be able to translate it to Atomese.
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 [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[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/5459cd60-4a1f-4c4e-9079-d6608b5b032f%40googlegroups.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/5459cd60-4a1f-4c4e-9079-d6608b5b032f%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
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 [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/747038b4-66eb-b7d8-df78-177b7a7fd4eb%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
