question about a concept from the PLN book on Ben's site..

[Apil Tamang]

Hi All,

Reading through the book on 'Probabilistic Logic Networks' which is posted on http://goertzel.org/PLN_BOOK_6_27_08.pdf. 

I think I'm making okay progress on the concepts on this book so far so good. There's just this one little area which has me completely stumped:

Chapter 3, Page 45:

'''

The Stripedog-recognizing predicate, call it FStripedog, has a SatisfyingSet that we may denote simply as stripedog, defined by 

ExtensionalEquivalence 

  Member $X stripedog 

  AND

    Evaluation FStripedog $X
    Evaluation isIdentifier ($X, FStripedog) 

'''

What is this block of PLN construct (or expression) trying to say, or what does it represent? Obviously, this is not a definition of  FStripedog, nor is it a definition of the satisfying-set for it (which is defined by stripedog). It may simply be that I don't understand exactly what the High-Order Relationship: 'ExtensionalEquivalence' means. I went back in the earlier pages and could not really locate how this HOR formally defined. I feel like this expression somehow is trying to formalize what constitutes as a satisfying-set for  predicate: FStripedog, but I couldn't be sure.

Thanks for any help.

P.S: An added bonus would be to let me know how the concepts in the PLN book relate to open-cog. I think most of this material maybe within the scope of the MOSES system, but somehow I feel this material is critical to opencog because (I think I read somewhere that) this is what gives opencog its innate ability to reason, deduct, and infer. How does the innate opencog reasoning/inference abilities depart from the more complex array of PLN logics available in MOSES ? Maybe I'm not even thinking right.. sorry about the verbosity.

[Nil Geisweiller]

Hi Apil,

On 11/07/2016 03:39 PM, Apil Tamang wrote:
> Hi All,
> Reading through the book on 'Probabilistic Logic Networks' which is
> posted on http://goertzel.org/PLN_BOOK_6_27_08.pdf.
> I think I'm making okay progress on the concepts on this book so far so
> good. There's just this one little area which has me completely stumped:
>
> Chapter 3, Page 45:
> '''
>
> The Stripedog-recognizing predicate, call it FStripedog, has a
> SatisfyingSet that we may denote simply as stripedog, defined by
>
>
> ExtensionalEquivalence
>
> Member $X stripedog
>
> AND
>
> Evaluation FStripedog $X
> Evaluation isIdentifier ($X, FStripedog)
>
> '''

Extensional equivalence means that you only consider the members of the
concepts in consideration, as opposed to their properties, which would
be an intensional equivalence.

I'm not sure what is the isIdentifier predicate here, but don't get
stuck over it, it's not important, if we ignore it, this merely becomes

ExtensionalEquivalence
Member $X Stripdog
Evaluation FStripdog $X

which BTW in today's atomese/scheme would be written

(ExtensionalEquivalenceScope
(Member (Variable "$X") (Concept "Stripdog"))
(Evaluation (Predicate "FStripdog") (Variable "$X")))

The scope being used to bind the variable $X to the extensional equivalence.

Hope it's clearer.

Nil

>
>
> What is this block of PLN construct (or expression) trying to say, or
> what does it represent? Obviously, this is not a definition of
> FStripedog, nor is it a definition of the satisfying-set for it (which

> is defined by /stripedog/). It may simply be that I don't understand

> exactly what the High-Order Relationship: 'ExtensionalEquivalence'
> means. I went back in the earlier pages and could not really locate how
> this HOR formally defined. I feel like this expression somehow is trying
> to formalize what constitutes as a satisfying-set for predicate:
> FStripedog, but I couldn't be sure.
>
>
> Thanks for any help.
>
>
> P.S: An added bonus would be to let me know how the concepts in the PLN
> book relate to open-cog. I think most of this material maybe within the
> scope of the MOSES system, but somehow I feel this material is critical
> to opencog because (I think I read somewhere that) this is what gives
> opencog its innate ability to reason, deduct, and infer. How does the
> innate opencog reasoning/inference abilities depart from the more
> complex array of PLN logics available in MOSES ? Maybe I'm not even
> thinking right.. sorry about the verbosity.
>
>
>
>

> --
> 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 opencog+u...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:opencog+u...@googlegroups.com>.
> To post to this group, send email to ope...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:ope...@googlegroups.com>.
> 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/0295afd3-af30-41d1-acae-22a85e08df9d%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/0295afd3-af30-41d1-acae-22a85e08df9d%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.