[FRIAM] Fwd: RE: Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

[Marcus Daniels]

“Black” can serve as an adjective or it can be part of a proper noun that happens to involve two glyphs (or three if you count the icon of the dog).
It could be convenient to ground the referent of “black dog” either earlier or later in a logic program or constraint solving procedure or NLP code.
That search can be constrained by other context like the purchase of brand name clothing or varieties of canids.   It’s just a question of having a sufficient short term memory and time to do that combinatorial disambiguation and a complete enough database<http://www.cyc.com/> of all the usages.

Merriam Webster has this funny tweet about how many so people are searching for dotard<https://twitter.com/TheJihyeLee/status/911007687298580481>.

From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 12:21 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: RE: Doxastic logic - Wikipedia



On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Frank Wimberly <wimberly3 at gmail.com<mailto:wimberly3 at gmail.com>> wrote:
[ ... ]
Beyond that, there are problems with statements that are apparently analytic.  Every black dog is a dog but is every iron horse a horse?  Even "black dog" may mean something other than a dog in some context.  Human language is very ambiguous.  That's why mathematicians use formal logic, sometimes.  In one of his books, John Baez says a 1x1 matrix is a number I pointed out that it wasn't and he said that all mathematicians would say it is except logicians.  He said he would lash himself with a wet noodle.


https://www.theblackdog.com

Can an AI learn logic googling the internets or will it end up as confused as I am?

-- rec --

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170922/6fdb8f56/attachment.html>