ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

## Re: [ontolog-forum] web-syllogism-and-worldview

 To: "[ontolog-forum]" "[ontolog-forum]" , "[ontolog-forum]" Duane Nickull Mon, 20 Apr 2009 21:30:35 -0700 <3F0EDC21-9160-488A-B449-266A07406C4D@xxxxxxxxx>
 ```Sorry all. iPhone spell check made me sound like an illiterate drunken lemur ( when in reality I am only a drunken lemur).    (01) Sent from my iPhone    (02) On 20-Apr-09, at 21:24, "Duane Nickull" wrote:    (03) > John. > > This is far more complicated than this. > > Every coffe table sold at Iowa has four legs. Every dog is born with > four legs. Unless you can disambiguate that legs has a different > meaning in those two np contexts, the logical conclusion would be > innacurate. > > D > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 20-Apr-09, at 18:06, "John F. Sowa" wrote: > >> Bart, Dick, and Pat, >> >> BG> John, do you think the recent work on standardization, >>> specifically on ontologies, has brought us any closer to >>> the formalization step? >> >> Formalization is not some kind of ultimate goal that we're >> striving to achieve. It is a very mundane, everyday process >> that children learn in elementary arithmetic. >> >> The word 'formal' comes from the word 'form'. A definition >> of some notation is formal when its meaning is totally >> determined by its *form* (AKA syntax, grammar, or pattern). >> >> The first formally defined notation was Aristotle's syllogisms. >> For example, the pattern named Barbara has the form >> >> Every A is a B. >> Every B is a C. >> Therefore, every A is a C. >> >> With patterns like these, Aristotle introduced the first recorded >> examples of the use of variables. If you replace the letters >> A, B, and C with any three nouns or noun phrases, you get a >> valid inference pattern. For example, >> >> Every woozle is a slithy tove. >> Every slithy tove is a one-eyed elephant. >> Therefore, every woozle is a one-eyed elephant. >> >> If the first two premises are true, then the conclusion is >> guaranteed to be true. If either one of the premises is >> false, then the truth of the conclusion is undetermined. >> >> In summary, formalization means nothing more nor less than the >> common practice of mathematicians and logicians for the past >> two and a half millennia. It merely means that the meaning >> of the notation and the transformations on it is defined by >> operations on the explicit grammatical patterns. >> >> BG> Fields such as fuzzy logic and probability theory let us >>> make statements about the world based on empirical data. >> >> Not quite. Those two systems, fuzzy logic and probability >> theory, are defined formally by patterns. Although the kinds >> of patterns are slightly different from Aristotle's patterns, >> they are related to reality in the same way: the results of >> processing a pattern are true of the world if and only if the >> starting data happens to be true of the world. >> >> BG> Classification algorithms, specifically tree based ones >>> like C4.5, are completely based on attributes and their values. >> >> Again, you have to recognize that the C4.5 procedure is purely >> formal. It's a different kind of pattern than Aristotle's, >> but its meaning is totally determined by the patterns and the >> operations on those patterns. The C4.5 algorithms do *not* >> process reality. The only things that they process are >> patterns of character strings that represent somebody's best >> guess about reality. >> >> The GIGO principle still holds: Garbage In, Garbage Out. >> >> BG> I'm wondering whether there is a point where statistical >>> analysis can take over where we simply don't know enough >>> about a topic to infer information using logic alone. >> >> There is no difference in principle. Logic and statistics >> measure different aspects of the same things, and they are >> completely compatible. Logic can be used to define what is >> an A, what is a B, and what is a C. Statistics counts how >> many As, how many Bs, and how many Cs. You use whichever >> one is appropriate to the data and what you're looking for. >> >> As for the C4.5 algorithm, it is more closely related to >> logic than it is to statistics. It's a kind of learning >> algorithm, but what it learns is a *decision tree* that >> can be expressed as a very large nest of if-then-else >> statements. That tree can be mapped to a program in any >> language that supports if-then-else statements, such as >> C or Java. It can also be mapped to first-order logic. >> >> RHM> How about a language that uses synsets instead of words? >>> Do you know if anyone has researched that? >>> >>> A synset is an equivalence class, similar to your >>> definition of proposition. >> >> The fact that two different subjects happen to use equivalence >> classes does not imply that they are similar in any real sense. >> >> In defining propositions as equivalence classes, I started with >> formally defined statements in some version of logic, and I >> defined a way of grouping them by logical equivalences. >> >> For WordNet, George Miller and his colleagues started with the >> informally defined words of English and grouped them according >> to their informal word senses, as determined by English speakers >> who used their subjective judgments and background knowledge. >> >> If you start with words and their informal meanings and group >> them according to somebody's informal judgments, the result >> is definitely *not* formal. It may be a very useful grouping >> for many purposes. (WordNet is a widely used resource, and we >> use it for our language processors at VivoMind.) But those >> synsets are much closer in principle to informal words and >> word senses than they are to the formal entities of mathematics. >> >> PC> But WordNet still represents a tremendous and useful effort, >>> and is useful for NL at a shallow semantic level. >> >> I agree with most of what you said about WordNet, including this >> sentence. However, the following sentence is asking for something >> totally different -- not just a revised WordNet. >> >> PC> It is a good start, but something similar with a more precise >>> semantics is needed. >> >> The synsets of WordNet are at the same level as the word senses of >> a typical English dictionary. The process of deriving a dictionary >> such as the OED begins with dozens or even hundreds of highly >> trained lexicographers who take millions of citations gathered by >> thousands of people (many of them volunteers) who extract those >> citations from a truly immense volume of English. >> >> The old shoe boxes full of paper slips have been computerized, >> but the amount of human effort is measured in person-centuries. >> What you find in the dictionary (or in WordNet) is a boiled-down >> or *condensed* extract of the "average" meaning over many, many >> different occurrences of each word sense. >> >> If you want precision, you won't get it by averaging from raw data. >> You can only get precision by examining the precise *microsenses* >> of each word as it is used in each and every citation in the total >> mass of raw data. >> >> This implies that the precise semantics will be truly immense. >> And instead of being listed in alphabetic order, the precise >> meanings will be grouped in something like the microtheories >> of Cyc. But there will be an enormous number of them. In 2004, >> Lenat & Co. estimated that they had about 6000 microtheories, >> and they may have many more by now. But every time they get >> a new application, they need at least one new microtheory, >> and often quite a few more microtheories. >> >> Remember the line that Amanda mentioned and I highlighted: >> >> Ontology is fractal. >> >> That means that the amount of detail that is necessary at each >> level is the same at every level you examine. That implies that >> we will need something of the size of WordNet for every topic >> of every branch of human knowledge and activity. The completely >> precise version you are asking for will dwarf the current WWW. >> >> Yet a child at the age of 3 has a command of language that is >> far better than any computer system today. And that child >> doesn't need Cyc or WordNet or formal logic. I believe we >> should focus on what makes a child smart -- and it's not Cyc >> or anything remotely like it. >> >> RHM> You [Pat C] consistently said mapping from WordNet to xxx. >>> Do you realize that OpenCyc is mapping from its concepts to WordNet? >> >> Lots of people have been mapping their ontologies to and from >> WordNet. >> But no computer can understand language as well as a 3-year-old >> child. >> >> John Sowa >> >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ >> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog- >> forum/ >> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ >> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ >> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J >> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> > > _________________________________________________________________ > Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ > Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ > Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ > Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ > To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J > To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >    (04) _________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (05) ```
 Current Thread Re: [ontolog-forum] web-syllogism-and-worldview, (continued) Re: [ontolog-forum] web-syllogism-and-worldview, Patrick Cassidy Re: [ontolog-forum] web-syllogism-and-worldview, Richard H. McCullough Re: [ontolog-forum] web-syllogism-and-worldview, Patrick Cassidy Re: [ontolog-forum] web-syllogism-and-worldview, Richard H. McCullough Re: [ontolog-forum] web-syllogism-and-worldview, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] web-syllogism-and-worldview, Patrick Cassidy Re: [ontolog-forum] web-syllogism-and-worldview, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] web-syllogism-and-worldview, Richard H. McCullough Re: [ontolog-forum] web-syllogism-and-worldview, Duane Nickull Re: [ontolog-forum] web-syllogism-and-worldview, Duane Nickull Re: [ontolog-forum] web-syllogism-and-worldview, Duane Nickull <= Re: [ontolog-forum] web-syllogism-and-worldview, Bart Gajderowicz Re: [ontolog-forum] web-syllogism-and-worldview, FERENC KOVACS