RE: [Heartlogic-dev] new idea

[Joshua N Pritikin]

On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 22:22 -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote:
> On Thu, 5 May 2005, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
> > I strongly suggest that we which generate fresh items from OpenCyc or
> > ResearchCyc, as it exists today, and not rely on items which were
> > generated by an unknown version of Cyc from the distant past.
> 
> You are correct in the sense that If we want to make statements about Cyc 
> as is we will need a working Cyc and at least 1000 human judgements.
> 
> However, we need to walk before we can run.  Consider this a pilot of a 
> method.

Hm, OK

But then where do we get the proof steps to show people after they rate
the item?  Let's just skip this part for now?

The other thing that occurs to me is that when we do this for real with
a real version of Cyc then we'll probably encounter the same problem as
with your dissertation study.  Namely that the believability of the
whole item may be caused by some small part of the proof.  To narrow in
on the part of the proof which is unbelievable, we might use the same
kind of flow-chart idea which I proposed for a followup to your
dissertation.

Are we on the same page here?

-- 
If you are an American then support http://fairtax.org
 (Permanently replace 50,000+ pages of tax law with about 200 pages.)

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part