Is abstract logic inference supported?

[Christopher Pereira]

Is abstract logic inference supported?

1) Example:

< p <=> q >.
< p ==> q >?

// result: "none", expected: "true"

2) Use case: abstract reasoning for AGI.

[Pei Wang]

This should work. Under the semantics of NARS, it is not more abstract than your previous examples.

As I am traveling abroad and have limited internet access, I can’t check your more complicated problems, nor to remove the moderation on your membership for posts.

Regards,

Pei

--


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "open-nars" group.


To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to open-nars+...@googlegroups.com.


To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/open-nars/fb480757-6078-4dd5-9761-c009c468107bn%40googlegroups.com.

[Christopher Pereira]

I believe the difference here is that I'm not saying anything about <p>.

If I say:

p.

Then:

q?

Returns "true".

Have a good trip.

[stephen clark]

 Hi,

Seeing that NARS has been around for a quite a while, is there any plans
for commercial support?


thanks

Stephen

[Patrick Hammer]

Hi Stephen!

Yes, for MeTTa-NARS already via SingularityNet, they encourage its usage together with the other components of Hyperon.

ONA despite more mature is not yet backed up by a company, but that will happen this year as well.

Best regards,

Patrick