Re: representing patterns and structures"Peter Clark" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: representing patterns and structures
To: email@example.com (Fritz Lehmann)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 10:16:55 -0600 (CST)
From: "Peter Clark" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
In-reply-to: <9411230205.AA01383@rodin.wustl.edu> from "Fritz Lehmann" at Nov 22, 94 08:05:27 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24alpha3]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>> I dont think we need get involved with Criteria Of Identity in order to
>> make useful progress on figuring out how to describe exceptional cases to
>> general patterns, and treat the result as a pattern.
> Suppose the order of description and exceptions is: 1. Make a circle
> of eleven round holes. 2. Make the top six holes into square holes.
> 3. Change the number of holes in the circle from eleven to ten. Question:
> How many square holes are there?
I think there's two separate issues here:
1. what do we mean?
2. can we represent what we mean "intensionally", ie. as a pattern, ie.
without explicitly enumerating all members of a collection?
I read the previous dialogue as saying "yes" to 2, even if there are
exceptional cases to the pattern.
You're comments address 1; even if we can represent things in an
"intensional-like" fashion, there may be several ways of interpreting
a natural-language positing of the question. I agree with that too,
it's a problem. But I think it's a problem with natural language
interpretation, not with "intensional-like" representations.
Peter Clark (email@example.com) Department of Computer Science
tel: (512) 471-9565, fax: (512) 471-8885 University of Texas at Austin
URL: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~pclark Austin, Texas, 78712, USA.
URL(research group): http://www.cs.utexas.edu/mfkb/index.html