|From:||Ali H <asaegyn@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:32:10 -0400|
Hi Robert,A couple of quick reactions.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:32 AM, <rrovetto@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
But there is also a question of how you choose those premises. Are they simply static? Can you generate them dynamically? What if there is ambiguity or freedom in how you select them? What's the underlying architecture?
Admittedly, the mechanism one uses to choose (or construct) a set of premises for deductive reasoning may itself not be deductive reasoning (though you can layer multiple levels, to have a dedicated layer of FOL-based reasoning select the appropriate set of premises), but therein lies an echo to what JohnS and EdB were saying - these reasoning systems are complementary.
As an example of trying to support a creativity-like / free-thinking module, imagine you are presented with a novel set of inputs. Assuming the inputs are not already in the language of your system (though even if they are), and assuming your internal FOL system comprises of a set of FOL theories connected in a modular architecture, then there is a requisite step of mapping the inputs to your internal set of premises. This mapping process can then choose to interpret or map your input to one or more (or novel combinations) of your internal modules. But to take this further ties into your next statements:
I don't see it as an either/or proposition.
One can combine the various forms of reasoning into a hybrid system (though establishing correctness for statements generated by a combination of them is not trivial). As an example, I once implemented a statement that would translate (classes of) NL statements into a HOL form, then pass it off to a physics engine + graphics processor for statistical and calculus based reasoning, before sending the results back to the HOL system for further reasoning and translation back into NL.
Having an FOL-derived base is useful as its model theory is very well known, and allows one to use it as an underlying glue to stitch together the other reasoning paradigms into a coherent and (if you're careful, in some cases) a provably consistent whole.
That said, I've found a dearth of (public?) publications on these types of hybrid reasoning systems
_________________________________________________________________ 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 (01)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Types of Formal (logical) Definitions in ontology, Philip Jackson|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Types of Formal (logical) Definitions in ontology, rrovetto|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Types of Formal (logical) Definitions in ontology, rrovetto|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Types of Formal (logical) Definitions in ontology, rrovetto|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|