🚀 go-pugleaf

Patrick Juola <juola@mathcs.duq.edu> wrote in article
<7j1eo5$rbe$1@quine.mathcs.duq.edu>...
> In article <37530426.0@news.kabsi.at>, Stefan M�hlbacher <e&s@kabsi.at>
wrote:
> >
> 
> The problem is that the division you are proposing is itself a knowledge
> domain in need of representation -- as is the knowledge that it is
> or is not needed to merge the two pieces.
> 
> For example, "I am tired and hungry" implies both that "I am tired"
> and "I am hungry."  
> 
> *BUT* "A zebra is black and white" does not imply the two individual
> statements "A zebra is black" and "A zebra is white." -- most native
> speakers would agree with the first, but disagree with the 2nd and 3rd.
> 
> So somehow you need to represent what is different about the first
> properties (tired, hungry) and the second (black, white).
> 
> As I pointed out, on that path lies madness.
> 

It is clear that there is additional semantic knowledge necessary to
decide whether a sentence can be split into parts or not.
So for each possible operand belonging to the predicate we need this
information
in order to represent the information in a useful way.

i.e: the sentence: "A zebra and my document is black and white" consists of
a predicate that allows two operands. One of them (the subject) can be
split,
the other (the color pattern) cannot.
So this information can be split into the two base knowledge units "A zebra
is black and white" and "My document is black and white", but not further.

This knowledge is a meta-knowledge about the relation itself.

The only thing I do not understand at the moment is the madness you are
pointing out. Which requirement causes the madness?

I see no principal problem to provide this information.

> >>(*) Let me also inquire why you choose to make property symbols
> >>into functions and object symbols into arguments.  Why
> >>
> >>is_tired(person).
> >>
> >>and not
> >>
> >>person(is_tired).
> >>
> >
> >The reason is that there could be additional parameters like:
> >
> >is_tired(person,today)
> >
> >When I write: persion(is_tired,today) then predicates will be mixed up
with
> >operands.
> 
> I still don't understand.  Predicates and operands are syntactic
properties
> of the representational system you choose -- person(is_tired,today) is
> a two-place predictate (person), with two operands.
> 
> You could just as easily have 
> 
> today(person, is_tired).
> 
> My question is why you chose to make verbs (and hence copula/adjective
> pairs) into predicates *INSTEAD* of operands.
> 

OK, I think it is no principal difference which syntactical representation
to use. 
But there is one practical point: for the symbol "person" and for the
symbol "today"
we can invent many different relation structures and contexts where these
symbols can be used.
But for the symbol "is_tired" we have a narrow set of relation parts:
1) the one who is tired, the subject
2) optionally a time
3) optionally a place
4) maybe some else, but not many.

For the symbol "person" or "today" exist maybe some hundred relation
patterns or more where they can be used.

So it is much more practically to define mandatory or optional relation
parts based
on "is_tired" than based on "person" or "today".

S. Muehlbacher


> 	-kitten
> 
>