One thing I don't get, YKY, is why you think you are going to take
textbook methods that have already been shown to fail, and somehow
make them work. Can't you see that many others have tried to use
FOL and ILP already, and they've run into intractable combinatorial
explosion problems?
Some may
Also, YKY, I can't help but note that your currently approach seems
extremely similar to Texai (which seems quite similar to Cyc to me),
more so than to OpenCog Prime (my proposal for a Novamente-like system
built on OpenCog, not yet fully documented but I'm actively working on
the docs now).
I
On 6/3/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, YKY, I can't help but note that your currently approach seems
extremely similar to Texai (which seems quite similar to Cyc to me),
more so than to OpenCog Prime (my proposal for a Novamente-like system
built on OpenCog, not yet fully
Hi Ben,
Note that I did not pick FOL as my starting point because I wanted to
go against you, or be a troublemaker. I chose it because that's what
the textbooks I read were using. There is nothing personal here.
It's just like Chinese being my first language because I was born in
China. I
On 6/3/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) representing uncertainties in a way that leads to tractable, meaningful
logical manipulations. Indefinite probabilities achieve this. I'm not saying
they're the only way to achieve this, but I'll argue that single-number,
Walley-interval,
On 6/3/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One thing I don't get, YKY, is why you think you are going to take
textbook methods that have already been shown to fail, and somehow
make them work. Can't you see that many others have tried to use
FOL and ILP already, and they've run into
As we have discussed a while back on the OpenCog mail list, I would like to
see a RDF interface to some level of the OpenCog Atom Table. I think that
would suit both YKY and myself. Our discussion went so far as to consider
ways to assign URI's to appropriate atoms.
Yes, I still think
First of all, the *tractability* of your algorithm depends on
heuristics that you design, which are separable from the underlying
probabilistic logic calculus. In your mind, these 2 things may be
mixed up.
Indefinite probabilities DO NOT imply faster inference.
Domain-specific heuristics
- Original Message
From: Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2008 1:59:54 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] OpenCog's logic compared to FOL?
Also, YKY, I can't help but note that your currently approach seems
extremely similar to Texai (which seems quite
You have done something new, but not so new as to be in a totally
different dimension.
YKY
I have some ideas more like that too but I've postponed trying to sell them
to others, for the moment ;-) ... it's hard enough to sell fairly basic stuff
like PLN ...
Look for some stuff on the
Ben,
If we don't work out the correspondence (even approximately) between
FOL and term logic, this conversation would not be very fruitful. I
don't even know what you're doing with PLN. I suggest we try to work
it out here step by step. If your approach really makes sense to me,
you will gain
Propositions are not the only things that can have truth values...
I don't have time to carry out a detailed mathematical discussion of
this right now...
We're about to (this week) finalize the PLN book draft ... I'll send
you a pre-publication PDF early next week and then you can read it and
we
On 6/4/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Propositions are not the only things that can have truth values...
Terms in term logic can have truth values. But such terms
correspond to propositions in FOL. There is absolutely no confusion
here.
I don't have time to carry out a detailed
hello ben
if i can have a pdf draf,i think you very much
bruno
- Message d'origine
De : Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
À : agi@v2.listbox.com
Envoyé le : Mardi, 3 Juin 2008, 18h33mn 02s
Objet : Re: [agi] OpenCog's logic compared to FOL?
Propositions are not the only things that can
On 6/3/08, Stephen Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe that the crisp (i.e. certain or very near certain) KR for these
domains will facilitate the use of FOL inference (e.g. subsumption) when I
need it to supplement the current Texai spreading activation techniques for
word sense
On 6/3/08, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you have any insights on how this learning will be done?
That research area is known as ILP (inductive logic programming).
It's very powerful in the sense that almost anything (eg, any Prolog
program) can be learned that way. But the problem
]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2008 12:20:19 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] OpenCog's logic compared to FOL?
On 6/3/08, Stephen Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe that the crisp (i.e. certain or very near certain) KR for these
domains will facilitate the use of FOL inference (e.g
On 6/4/08, Stephen Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All of the work to date on program generation, macro processing,
application configuration via parameters, compilation, assembly, and program
optimization has used crisp knowledge representation (i.e. non-probabilistic
data structures).
From: YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2008 5:29:07 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] OpenCog's logic compared to FOL?
On 6/4/08, Stephen Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All of the work to date on program generation, macro processing, application
I think it's fine that you use the term atom in your own way. The
important thing is, whatever the objects that you attach probabilities
to, that class of objects should correspond to *propositions* in FOL.
From there it would be easier for me to understand your ideas.
Well, no, we attach
On 6/2/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
eats(x, mouse)
That's a perfectly legitimate proposition. So it is perfectly OK to write:
P( eats(x,mouse) )
Note here that I assume your mouse refers to a particular instance
of a mouse, as in:
eats(X, mouse_1234)
What's confusing is:
Well, it's still difficult for me to get a handle on how your logic
works, I hope you will provide some info in your docs, re the
correspondence between FOL and PLN.
I think it's fine that you use the term atom in your own way. The
important thing is, whatever the objects that you attach
On 6/2/08, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
YKY, how are you going to solve the natural language interface problem? You
seem to be going down the same path as CYC. What is different about your
system?
One more point:
Yes, my system is similar to Cyc in that it's logic-based. But of
Ben,
I should not say that FOL is the standard of KR, but that it's
merely more popular. I think researchers ought to be free to explore
whatever they want.
Can we simply treat PLN as a black box, so you don't have to explain
its internals, and just tell us what are the input and output format?
More likely though, is that your algorithm is incomplete wrt FOL, ie,
there may be some things that FOL can infer but PLN can't. Either
that, or your algorithm may be actually slower than FOL.
FOL is not an algorithm, it:s a representational formalism...
As compared to standard logical
--- On Mon, 6/2/08, YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
YKY, how are you going to solve the natural language
interface problem? You seem to be going down the same path
as CYC. What is different about your system?
One more point:
Yes, my system is similar to Cyc in that it's
YKY,
Can you give an example of something expressed in PLN that is very
hard or impossible to express in FOL?
FYI, I recently run into some issues with my [under-development]
formal language (which is being designed for my AGI-user
communication) when trying to express statements like:
John
Here are some examples in FOL:
Mary is female
female(mary)
Could be
Inheritance Mary female
or
Evaluation female mary
(the latter being equivalent to female(mary) )
but none of these has an uncertain truth value attached...
This is a [production] rule: (not to be confused with an
Ben, Thanks for the answers.
One more question about the term atom used in OpenCog.
In logic an atom is a predicate applied to some arguments, for example:
female(X)
female(mary)
female(mother(john))
etc.
Truth values only apply to propositions, but they may consist of
only single
Do OpenCog atoms roughly correspond to logical atoms?
Not really
And what is the counterpart of (logic) propositions in OpenCog?
ExtensionalImplication relations I guess...
I suggest don't use non-standard terminology 'cause it's very confusing...
So long as it's well-defined, I guess it's
30 matches
Mail list logo
