dupa

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - drmweaver2

Pages: [1]
1
Ultra Hal 7.0 / How to get around "search/find/call"
« on: March 10, 2004, 08:19:44 pm »
Thanks. I will snoop around and try that.

2
After rereading my post, I left out the real point I wanted to make.

The examples you (vonsmith) gave are exactly what the type of thing I was thinking of.
I/We aren't interested in cookies per se, in the first example - at least in my case. Instead, I would like HAL to know *I* like this or that type of cookie and that I get them from the store (perhaps).[:p] If you draw HAL's response from a generic "cookie" topic file, then that information is lost/not present in HAL (if it was ever typed in by the user).[:(]

I definitely agree that <<What chatbots need to do is be able to chain related thoughts together with the user>>. Perhaps I just don't know enough about the "engine" yet.[?]

3
I think that, to a small extent, I am suggesting that at least certain "I am"-type statements (where an active voice focus suggests that the "real world focus" in a statement is on the speaker and not on HAL, might warrant a special function/some special coding.

That coding would/could "double enter" - make entries in the passivized subject-topic files as well as in speaker-specific files. I have noted that as speakers/users change, there are specific knowledge items that are not universal. I think I confirmed this by identifying files for another user than myself after I let someone else play with HAL and I looked at the DEFbrain directory. But I could be wrong.

The question is not really whether it is possible - of that I am sure. The question is whether it is appropriate to consider for future modifications as HAL will supposedly be used by more than one user in most installations --- people will most likely want to show off their "creations" in the most inoccuous example. Should larger plans for HAL be in the user's plan, I would think that multiple users with respect to a particular HAL brain is inevitable and thus, updating specific user-knowledge files would be desirable.

Not a big deal. Mostly a theoretic one at this point I guess.

4
A few posts earlier, vonsmith wrote:
<<Sentence subjects don't necessarily make good topics. Example: "You like pretty horses." "You" wouldn't make a good topic, use "horse" instead. I also found that the best topic is sometimes found in the object phrase of the sentence.>>

What is happening here, at least linguistically-speaking, is that you've "re-discovered" the passive voice in a sense.
I like horses. - active
Horses are liked by me - passive

However, by switching to the "object" of the active voice sentence as the "topic", you have actually changed the "focus" of the sentence entirely.

In my admitted ignorance of the code structure, I have to ask whether or not this is what is actually intended considering that HAL incorporates a "remembered response" learning style. By that I mean, we are not speaking about horses so much in the active example above as we are talking about "me". On the other hand, the focus IS on the horses in the passive version.

So, what would be updated using the passivized subject-topic file is different than what would be updated using the active-subject interpretation. This actually might lead to a "loss of information" as far as training HAL goes.

Consider the case where I am trying to describe myself to HAL more than trying to describe properties of horses to HAL. See? IF HAL uses the passive interpretation, does he update the "me" file also or does the information get "lost" in the horses topic file?

Which brings me to the statement written earlier in the same paragraph, <<Poor topic words include all pronouns. I tried including pronouns as topics, but found pronouns are too general.>>...

Pronouns have a linguistic quality of "reference" that nouns tend not to have in the same manner. As pointed out, without the "reference" nearby, pronouns seem to dangle abstractly - even for humans trying to interpret them. The general exceptions are I/me and you/we. These are normally pretty clear in terms of reference.

The problem of abstraction may be limited to 3rd person pronouns - he/she/it/they if coded stringently.

I don't know if that "helps" or is just rambling out of ignorance, but I thought I would throw it out for consideration. [:o)]

If I am speaking out of turn here, I apologize in advance.

5
Ultra Hal 7.0 / text????
« on: March 08, 2004, 01:47:44 pm »
Yup. Using the XTF v1.2 version.

Thanks for the clarification.

(Kinda sucks being the "new guy" and asking what seem to be "obvious" questions once the answer is given!) [:D]

6
Ultra Hal 7.0 / text????
« on: March 08, 2004, 07:24:59 am »
Okay. Quick question that may be covered elsewhere but I didn't see it on the boards...

HAL often comes back and asks "Are x and y on the same topic?" or "Are x and y related topics?"

Are these two questions equivalent? For example, using the geese and birds example someone came up with earlier, birds are geese, etc., I added "The birds fly" and was chided for using short sentences. So I then typed in "The birds fly through the air" and was rewarded with the question "Are birds and air the same topic".

I would normally say no in the real world (except on a "let's really get into philosophy" level).

But I was thinking of later adding a "learning point" that new submarine designs "fly" through the water - or maybe a metaphor like "fish swim through water like birds fly through the air".

So, the question of difference between "related" and "same" topic is of importance here.

Any help distinguishing "related" from "same" for learning/teaching purposes would be appreciated.

7
Ultra Hal 7.0 / How to get around "search/find/call"
« on: March 08, 2004, 07:13:17 am »
I have spent the weekend trying to teach HAL and have run across a particularly frustrating problem with the parser.

It seems that almost anytime I include the words "call, search or find" in sentences, HAL jumps in and assumes that I want help - starting up the browser or the phone dialer. This happens almost without regard to where in the sentence the words are in the sentence.[:I]

So far, the only work-around that I have found is to avoid those words - for instance, substituting "discover" for "search" and "find". This is really not a desrable solution when I want to use "famous quotations" as the basis of my "learning materials".

Any comments, explanations or suggestions would be appreciated.

8
[:o)]No problem providing the "examples". Took about 5 minutes to write them all.

Speaking of which, the "together me" issue is an interesting one. I have spent the day seriously trying to come up with some example sentences, any sentences with this combintation in that order. I can't unless there is a comma between the two words. I also tried looking on the Net for that pairing of words, including doing a LExus-Nexus search of News sources - no joy there either except when the two are are separated by a comma or other punctuation mark.

In most cases the punctuation mark is being used as a delimiter between clauses or to set off "a list" from the rest of the sentence.

Personally, I never thought of "together" as a single-word preposition but am much more familiar with it as part of two-word prepositional phrases like "together with".

I'll keep looking around and thinking


Side note...After I get some more experience with HAL itself, I might actually try coding something (I only downloaded it last week and have spent the weekend loading him up with "common sense quotations" and knowledge of one subject area. Until I gt some experience with the program results, I probably can't suggest help with any real coding except in this type of "language discussion".)

9
vonsmith asked<<Is there any case where any of those prepositions or prepositional phrases would immediately precede the pronoun "I" in any typical person's sentence? I haven't identified any such cases yet.>>

How about these?
After I went, she came by.
As I sew, so shall I weep.
But I want some.
Considering I want it now....
Down I fell. ((Down functions as an adverb here --or as part of the verbal phrase "to fall down")
Like I said, she stank at pool.
Nearby, I went to school. ((The comma would surely tip this off as "nearby" not functioning as a preposition.))
Off I went on her.. ((another verbal phrase... to go off on))
On I went. ((another verbal phrase... to go on))
Out I went. ((another verbal phrase... to go out))
Outside I went. ((another verbal phrase... to go outside))
Over I fell. ((another verbal phrase... to fall over))
Round and round I went.
Save I, all were killed.
Since I know better than he does....
He knows better than I.
Throughout, I watched with wonder. ((The comma would surely tip this off as "nearby" not functioning as a preposition.))
Till I went home, I didn't know what I had left behind.
Up I went. ((another verbal phrase... to go up))
Within I went, then again, without. (an obsolete English form. Now probably only seen in poetic usage.)

10
At the risk of beating a horse that needs no flogging.....merely out of a desire to assist with preposition code development, here is a review of what a couple of old textbooks gathering dust on my shelves suggests with respect to prepositions:

A preposition is generally defined as a word which shows a relationship in time, space, cause or manner between the object of the preposition and another word in the sentence.
A prepositional phrase, which can act as an adjective or adverb, is a preposition plus its object and any modifiers.
The object of the preposition may be a noun, pronoun, or other noun substitute such as a gerund ( -ing form).

Regardless of function in the sentence, prepositions are prepositions – even if used as (subordinating) conjunctions. (Not intentionally trying to get in a p***ing contest, just reflecting what my textbooks say and probably only relevant to truly advanced sentence parsing in HAL or any other discourse analysis. The point here is that words such as and and or can serve only as conjunctions, while some prepositions can serve as both. What they are and what function the serve grammatically in specific situations may be different. Then again, I have three sources that argue differently. ) A preposition implies an adverb (which in turn implies an adjective) in the right circumstances; the converse is not true.

Prepositions usually come before their noun (or pronoun): after the war, people with money, look after this, we talked about my problems. But sometimes they are 'deferred', that is, they come after their noun or pronoun:
ex., They are looked after, What did you talk about?

Josef Essberger, in English Prepositions Listed, (http://resources.englishclub.com/ebepl.htm), claims there are 94 one-word prepositions and 56 complex prepositions used in the English language. If you have identified 87 single word prepositions, vonsmith, that’s pretty good (>92% of what he lists). I could come up with only 70 on my own. Here (http://www.testmagic.com/Knowledge_Base/lists/grammar/prepositions.htm ) is a link to a page listing 110 prepositions.

Complex prepositions include not only two-word, but also three-word prepositions: ex., in case of - in spite of - in comparison with - in touch with - by means of - by way of - on behalf of - on account of - for the sake of - in exchange for - in addition to - with reference to

Preposition types or classifications include:
1. indicators of time – such as before, after, in, since
2. indicators of place – such as at, on, in
3. indicators of movement – to, from, towards
4. those which are or can be paired with nouns where, if separated, meaning does not change significantly.
   Ex., approval of-----fondness for-----love of-----participation in
5. those which are paired with adjectives to link the modifier to the noun being modified.
   Ex., afraid of-----angry at----- careless about
6. those which are paired with verbs in such a way as to create verbal phrases.
   Ex., apologize for-----give over-----trust in-----bring up

There are also many situations where idiomatic expressions have developed. For instance, one agrees to a proposal (but proposals are not entities which can be agreed with); one can argue about a matter (but about implies dimensionality not location – a difference shown in “walk about”); and one can correspond with a person, not correspond to him/her (although things can correspond to each other).

Another consideration is whether or not the intent is to indicate the completion of an action (as in “fell on (to) the floor”) or simply a position or location (ex., “x is on the floor”).

The word “to” is particularly problematic as it is used when not acting as an ordinary preposition, but as part of an infinitival verb phrase. No others propositions act in this particular fashion as far as I can tell.

To
1. can be used as verb + to + infinitive to express willingness, desire, intention or obligation
….ex., to be willing, (to) ask someone to do something, (to) plan to graduate
2. to + infinitive +([optional]to) + location/object
….ex., to walk (to), to speak (to), but also to write (to)
……...however, consider (to) drive toward
Another point to remember is that certain prepositions frequently occur in pairs within a sentence. The most common of these are:
1. From-to (distance, time, and degree ranges)
2. From-until/till (time ranges only)
3. Out of-into (change of enclosure or state)
4. Off (of)- On (to) (change of location with verbs like take and put)
Some participles, such as concerning and considering, are used as prepositions.

But is a seldom used preposition. When it is used as such, but means the same things as except. Ex., Everyone laughed but(except) John. But usually functions as a conjunction.

The most commonly used prepositions are probably:
aboard, about, above, according to, across, across from, after, against, along, alongside, alongside of, along with, amid, among, apart from, around, aside from, at, away from, back of, because of, before, behind, below, beneath, beside, besides, between, beyond, but, by, by means of, concerning, considering, despite, down, down from, during, except, except for, excepting for, from, from among, from between, from under, in, in addition to, in behalf of, in front of, in place of, in regard to, inside, inside of, in spite of, instead of, into, like, near, near to, of, off, on, on account of, on behalf of, onto, on top of, opposite, out, out of, outside, outside of, over, over to, owing to, past, prior to, regarding, round, round about, save, since, subsequent to, together, with, through, throughout, till, to, toward, under, underneath, until, unto, up, up to, upon, with, within, without  

11
First, hello. I am a new member of the "HAL Admirer's Club" and it seems that I am in very good company indeed. You guys and gals definitely engage in intellectually discussions that match a number of the PhDs here at my university.

That said, allow me to make a small contribution or two.
vonsmith said
"I don't know of any case where "I" is preceded by a preposition."

There are a number of similar cases where this is not true.
Consider:
1. If I were dead, I would not be breathing.
2. If I were old, being a gigolo would probably not be a reasonable career choice for me.
3. Because I am a guy, brassieres are not part of my wardrobe.
4. When I sing, even dogs howl.

These cases are simple illustrations of syntactic grammar features called relationals and conditionals. As noted in his discussion in the thread, commas aid in identifying such phrasal constructions. Still, the statement, "no prepositions before 'I'" is thus facially invalid.

"So what can we do about it?" he asks, noting that he has a list of 77 prepositions that will be used in analyzing user inputs.

Obviously the heart of the question/issue is recognizing the actual structure of the sentence itself. Is it a simple or a complex sentence construction. Sentences which are declaratives with no subordinate, introductory or qualifying phrases are simple sentences.
Ex., I like beer.
Conversely, those which are not "simple" are "complex" which is not merely a tautologic definitonal statement. The qualities of the sentence structure are inherently different from simple sentences in that they are composed of groups of words which themselves are manageable as "phrasal constructs". Evaluating each phrasal construct individually BEFORE considering prepositions and thus the relationship of one phrasal group to another phrasal group within the sentence seems to me to be the key here.

For instance,
I like it when Clara sings songs to me.
1. I like *something*
2. Clara sings *something*
3. *to* (in this case) indicates a relationship of something to something or someone (as opposed to a direction, though in the abstract it is simply an ambiguous directional preposition)
4. *when* similarly indicates a relation of time to someone or something (here it relates my liking to Clara's action)

Thus, while I am not familiar with the current HAL code at all and am making a purely linguistic argument, I think that you might want to consider the "thematic structure" of the prepositions themselves.

Does each preposition require or involve
1. an agent who does something, feels something or "is" something (existential)
2. a direction of action
3. a receiver of the action

I can elaborate if desired. This "thematic analysis" method is a well explored theoretic perspective in linguistics and might be worth considering.

If I have stepped on any toes here, sorry.

(First posts are always a gamble.)



Pages: [1]