ORB Visualization
(soon)
Dick Ballard said:
But frustratingly you keep dropping back to ordered triples <a r
b> and throw away all the dimensionality in pair wise conditional (if ....,
then .....) relationships.
Please escape the conditional sentence grammar and go to full space
mappings. That would move you into the n-ary theory bundles and constraint
browsing.
You are thinking that <a r b> is general, because you can parameterize r(p1, p2, ....pn). That is because your SLIP approach is looking only for pair-wise correlation measures.
These notes are simply a mis-understanding of the general theory that I have developed and published. First, the notion of an n-ary may be more useful that a bag of binary relationships
{ < a, r, b > }
or NOT, depending on two issues:
1) can any n-ary be reexpressed as an set of order triples in such a fashion that the original n-ary can be reproduced exactly.
2) Is there a principle of syntactic sufficiency where cognitive priming and human understanding of the subject matter allows either a n-ary relationship or a set of binary relationship to cause the same evocation of mental experience when humans perceive a symbol construction or hear sounds corresponding to these contractions.
The first issue is related to the interoperability of machine representations (or ontology). The second issue is related to the points the John M and John Sowa are willing to discuss.