Sysop: | Amessyroom |
---|---|
Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
Users: | 43 |
Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
Uptime: | 94:06:25 |
Calls: | 290 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 904 |
Messages: | 76,378 |
? okresult
true_fact:action: ''
not_fact:action: ''
swim:action: ''
bird:action: ''
black&white:action: ''
penguin:action: '_penguin_ cr type'
true_fact:action: ''
true_fact:action: ''
not_fact:action: ''
give-milk:action: 'give-milk yes'
not-fly:action: 'not-fly yes'
tawny-color:action: 'tawny-color yes'
dark-spots:action: 'dark-spots yes'
black&white:action: 'black&white yes'
mammal:action: ''
black-stripes:action: 'black-stripes yes'
carnivore:action: ''
eat-meat:action: 'eat-meat yes'
cheetah:action: '_cheetah_ cr type'
tiger:action: '_tiger_ cr type'
true_fact:action: ''
Thank you for sharing your outstanding work here!
I don't think I understand the details of your program
but it seems to me way simpler than the famous Warren
Abstract Machine. IMHO your concept is very well suited
for teaching students how to approach problemss from
the ground up.
(first, I used defered words but that didn't give the good
results for iForth and vfxForth)
Thank you for sharing your outstanding work here!
I don't think I understand the details of your program
but it seems to me way simpler than the famous Warren
Abstract Machine.
I'll see how to change the flow of the inference using the action field
of facts and executing them during the inference, like this we can
choose the next rule to use.
s" platypus :- swim , not-fly , eat-meat , hoofs , hair .;" >rules
melahi_ahmed@yahoo.fr (ahmed) writes:
I'll see how to change the flow of the inference using the action field
of facts and executing them during the inference, like this we can
choose the next rule to use.
Potential improvements:
Also have rules that work for both truth and falsness. E.g., for
non-extinct animals, all birds have feathers and only birds have
feathers. So if you ask the "feathers" question, and you get a "yes",
you know it is a bird, and if you get a "no", you know that it is no
bird.
And then you do not need to ask about wings
and egg-laying unless the
answer is "don't know" (supporting that would be another improvement).
s" platypus :- swim , not-fly , eat-meat , hoofs , hair .;" >rules
It seems to me that the platypus has claws, not hoofs. The most
puzzling property of the platypus, though, is that it is a mammal and
lays eggs.
- anton
On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 15:09:13 +0000, Anton Ertl wrote:
melahi_ahmed@yahoo.fr (ahmed) writes:
I'll see how to change the flow of the inference using the action field >>>of facts and executing them during the inference, like this we can
choose the next rule to use.
Potential improvements:
Also have rules that work for both truth and falsness.
And then you do not need to ask about wings
The bat has wings and can fly and it is a mammal.
and egg-laying unless the
answer is "don't know" (supporting that would be another improvement).
Your example `platypus', it lays eggs, and it is not a bird.
Until now, I assume: no equivalent to unknown.
Three level logic: yes/no/unknown (true/false/unknown)can be
implemented.
Perhaps, Carnaugh tables can be helpful.
melahi_ahmed@yahoo.fr (ahmed) writes:
I'll see how to change the flow of the inference using the action field
of facts and executing them during the inference, like this we can
choose the next rule to use.
Potential improvements:
Also have rules that work for both truth and falsness. E.g., for
non-extinct animals, all birds have feathers and only birds have
feathers. So if you ask the "feathers" question, and you get a "yes",
you know it is a bird, and if you get a "no", you know that it is no
bird.
And then you do not need to ask about wings and egg-laying unless the
answer is "don't know" (supporting that would be another improvement).
s" platypus :- swim , not-fly , eat-meat , hoofs , hair .;" >rules
It seems to me that the platypus has claws, not hoofs. The most
puzzling property of the platypus, though, is that it is a mammal and
lays eggs.
- anton
Or, more generally, negative rules. Then there would be:
bird :- feathers .;
not bird :- not feathers .;
I am referring to your rule
bird :- wings , lay-eggs .;
So if you have established that the animal has wings AND lays eggs
(and is not extinct), it's a bird. With the negative rules one could
also specify
not bird :- not wings .;
not bird :- not lay-eggs .;
Until now, I assume: no equivalent to unknown.
Three level logic: yes/no/unknown (true/false/unknown)can be
implemented.
Perhaps, Carnaugh tables can be helpful.
Strangely, even though there are a lot of people working on logic in
my school, I have never heard of any work in that direction. But I
would be very surprised if that was uncharted land.
- anton
Now AI takes over. A simple metafysical database where you have
decide whether this is hoofs or claws, is old fashioned.
Groetje Albert
Hi,
First, I have the free version:
iForth version 4.0.627, generated 15:51:53, December 18, 2010.
x86_64 binary, native floating-point, extended precision.
Copyright 1996 - 2010 Marcel Hendrix.