In article <2025Jan5.160913@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>,   
   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.  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.   
      
   I had an animals database code in c. I considered a property as true only   
   if the majority of the respondents considered it true. That weeds out   
   unanswerable questions whether a leopard has mainly sweat glands on its belly.   
   You were supposed to have an animal in mind and answer the questions.   
   At the end you are left with a correct answer or undistingishable animals.   
   In game theory fashion the questions are selected by chance to give   
   the most information, and the answers are accumulated, such that   
   a good question goes to the fore. (In game theory you are supposed   
   to try unfavourable strategies once in a while. If you have a   
   solid reputation as a poker player, you can shove all in with   
   2 8 not suited, once in a while.)   
      
   I imagine that it was a good medical database. If the questions are   
   "has the patient a rash of a type similar to figure 10a"   
   the answers are definitive, not based on stereotypical images.   
   (You can ask a three year old whether an elephant has a trunk,   
   before she have ever seen an elephant.)   
   Then there is the possibility to attach costs for each question. "Has   
   the patient globules in his liver, revealed by an MRI scan?". If there   
   are cost effective questions to be answered, that eliminates diagnoses,   
   these would be favoured first.   
      
   Now AI takes over. A simple metafysical database where you have   
   decide whether this is hoofs or claws, is old fashioned.   
   It reminds me of Plato where the idea of hoofs exist independent   
   of the human minds. Where hoofs are a shadow of the ideal hoofs   
   outside of the cave.   
      
   >- anton   
      
   Groetje Albert   
   --   
   Temu exploits Christians: (Disclaimer, only 10 apostles)   
   Last Supper Acrylic Suncatcher - 15Cm Round Stained Glass- Style Wall   
   Art For Home, Office And Garden Decor - Perfect For Windows, Bars,   
   And Gifts For Friends Family And Colleagues.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)