Re: [agi] standard way to represent NL in logic?

2008-05-08 Thread YKY (Yan King Yin)
On 5/7/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: YKY : Logic can deal with almost everything, depending on how much effort you put in it =) LES sanglots longs. des violons. de l'automne. Blessent mon cour d'une langueur monotone. You don't just read those words, (and most words), you hear

Re: [agi] standard way to represent NL in logic?

2008-05-08 Thread Mike Tintner
Actually, the sound of language isn't just a subtle thing - it's foundational. Language is sounds first, and letters second (or third/fourth historically). And the sounds aren't just sounds - they express emotions about what is being said. Not just emphases per one earlier post. You could

[agi] standard way to represent NL in logic?

2008-05-07 Thread YKY (Yan King Yin)
Is there any standard (even informal) way of representing NL sentences in logic? Especially complex sentences like John eat spaghetti with a fork or The dog that chased the cat jumped over the fence. etc. I have my own way of translating those sentences, but having a standard would be much

Re: [agi] standard way to represent NL in logic?

2008-05-07 Thread Matt Mahoney
--- YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there any standard (even informal) way of representing NL sentences in logic? No. But it hasn't stopped people from trying. The meaning of sentences and even paragraphs depends on context that is not captured in logic. Consider the

Re: [agi] standard way to represent NL in logic?

2008-05-07 Thread YKY (Yan King Yin)
On 5/7/08, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No. But it hasn't stopped people from trying. The meaning of sentences and even paragraphs depends on context that is not captured in logic. Consider the following examples, where a different word is emphasized in each case: - I didn't

Re: [agi] standard way to represent NL in logic?

2008-05-07 Thread YKY (Yan King Yin)
On 5/7/08, Stephen Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To my knowledge there is a standard style but there is of course no standard ontology. Roughly the standard style is First Order Predicate Calculus (FOPC) and within the linguistics community this is called logical form. For reference see

Re: [agi] standard way to represent NL in logic?

2008-05-07 Thread Stephen Reed
YKY, The Rus form is also a popular logical form, have you heard of it? I think it is complete in the sense that all English (or NL) sentences can be represented in it, but the drawback is that it's somewhat indirect. I have not heard about Rus form. Could you provide a link or reference?

Re: [agi] standard way to represent NL in logic?

2008-05-07 Thread YKY (Yan King Yin)
On 5/7/08, Stephen Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have not heard about Rus form. Could you provide a link or reference? This is one of the papers: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cache/papers/cs/22812/http:zSzzSzwww.seas.smu.eduzSz~vasilezSzictai2001.pdf/rus01high.pdf you can find some examples

Re: [agi] standard way to represent NL in logic?

2008-05-07 Thread Mike Tintner
YKY : Logic can deal with almost everything, depending on how much effort you put in it =) LES sanglots longs. des violons. de l'automne. Blessent mon cour d'une langueur monotone. You don't just read those words, (and most words), you hear them. How's logic going to hear them? YOY YKY? You