--- On Wed, 4/18/12, Richard Weyhrauch <rweyhrauch@yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: Richard Weyhrauch <rweyhrauch@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Fwd: Polyscheme Output + pat's dialog
> To: "Will Bridewell" <willb@stanford.edu>
> Cc: jforth@iweng.org
> Date: Wednesday, April 18, 2012, 11:30 AM
> Got it.
> here is my pass 1 for Pat's dialog. Let me know if it is
> closer to the mark than my remarks Tuesday Morn.
>
> ===============================
> simple formalization
>
> This leaves out Pat's meta comments and takes Will's remark
> seriously that blocks world is not mentioned in the dialog
>
> Two people me and bob (bob is describing to me what he did)
>
> I had a goal to get A on B.
> (hear me (say bob (that
> (goal me (in W1 (on A B))) )))
>
> I expected that stacking A on B from the table would
> produce a state
> in which A was on B.
> (hear me (say bob (that
> (expected me (in (do me W1 (stack A B)) (on A B)))
> )))
> here we have the problem of what is an
> 'action'
> (stack A B) is unlikely to be an
> 'action/rule' for us
> as it does not articulate ALL the
> parameter. Perhapss
> (expected me (in (do (stack me W1 A B)) (on A
> B))) )))
> here (in ?W ?E) means that
> ?E can be found in the belief structure of
> ?W
> note that 'do' is imagined to be descrictive
> SO
> (do (stack bob W1 A B)) (if doable) would
> result in changing
> the belief structure of W1 to contain the
> effects of stacking
> and it would 'replace' the belief
> structure W1 in bob
> SO in the next utterance bob would still
> refer to this as W1
> in this sense we (temporarily) beg the
> issue of time.
>
> Thus, I created a goal to stack A on B from the table.
> (hear me (say bob (that
> (done (add-to me me (goal me (do (stack me W1 A B)))))
> )))
> This ugly collections of me is because
> 'add-to' is an action
> which requires both an agent and a world as a
> parameter
>
> But one of the conditions of stacking A on B, that B be
> clear, was
> not satisfied.
> (hear me (say bob (that (and
> (precondition (do me W1 (stack A B)) (in W1 (clear
> B)))
> (not (in W1 (clear B))) ))))
> note (in W1 (clear B)) means that
> the expression (clear B) can be found
> in the belief structure of W1
> confusing logical 'satisfaction' with this
> seems wrong
> so I use 'in' instead of 'satisfy' for
> relations
> abduction could be used here
> to fill in bob's knowledge about
> actions in W1
>
> So I created a goal to have B clear.
> (hear me (say bob (that
> (done (add-to me me (goal me (do (clear me W1 B)))))
> )))
>
> I expected that unstacking C from B to the table would
> produce a state
> in which B was clear.
> (hear me (say bob (that
> (expected me (in (do me W1 (unstack C B)) (clear B)))
> )))
>
> Thus, I created a goal to unstack C from B to the table.
> (hear me (say bob (that
> (done (add-to me me (goal me (in W1 (unstack C B))))
> )))
>
> The conditions for unstacking C from B were satisfied, so
> I carried
> out this action.
> (hear me (say bob (that (and
> (all-in W1 (preconditions (unstack me W1 C B)))
> (done (unstack me W1 C B)) ))))
>
> Carrying out this action achieved the associated goal.
> (hear me (say bob (that
> (achieved (doing (do (unstack me W1 C B))) (goal me
> (in W1 (clear B)))) )))
>
> The action also produced a state in which, as expected, B
> was clear.
> (hear me (say bob (that (and
> (satisfied (expected me (in (do (unstack me W1 C B))
> (clear B))))
> (in W1 (clear B)) ))))
>
> Thus, this state satisfied the goal of having B clear.
> (hear me (say bob (that
> (satisfied (goal me (in W1 (clear B))) )))
>
> The conditions was stacking A on B were satisfied, so I
> carried out
> this action.
> (hear me (say bob (that (and
> (all-satisfied W1 (preconditions (stack A B)))
> (done (stack me W1 A B)) ))))
>
> Carrying out this action achieved the associated goal.
> (hear me (say bob (that
> (satisfied (goal me (in W1 (on A B)))) )))
>
> The action also produced a state in which, as expected, A
> was on B.
> (hear me (say bob (that
> (satisfied (expectation me (in W1 (on A B))))
> (in W1 (on A B)) )))
>
> Thus, this state satisfied the goal of having A on B,
> which solved
> the original problem.
> (hear me (say bob (that (and
> (satisfied (goal me (in W1 (on A B))))
> (solved problem) ))))
> by abduction
> (do (solve-problem me me (on W1 A B)))
>
> This contains a litany
> Have expectation
> create goal
> try to satisfy goal
> this could be turned into a 'higher level'
> activity/action
>
> ==========================
>
> Richard
>
>
> --- On Tue, 4/17/12, Will Bridewell <willb@stanford.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > From: Will Bridewell <willb@stanford.edu>
> > Subject: Fwd: Polyscheme Output
> > To: "Richard Weyhrauch" <rweyhrauch@yahoo.com>
> > Date: Tuesday, April 17, 2012, 11:45 PM
> > FYI.
> >
> > I'm leaving out most of the discussion, which centered
> > around how
> > vastly unlikely it is that we'll ever see any relevant
> NLP
> > output from
> > Polyscheme. The important part is Pat's response
> quoted
> > below,
> > specifically the first sentence.
> >
> > "I would be perfectly happy for our system to accept
> as
> > input, and
> > generate as output, very constrained sentences in a
> > controlled
> > language. Of course, I would be even happier if we
> could
> > interface to
> > Nick's system and so handle less constrained input, but
> I
> > don't see
> > that as necessary for making our main point. On the
> other
> > hand,
> > working with an internal notation that's close to what
> > Polyscheme is
> > using does seem important, so I think we should keep
> trying
> > to work
> > out the details with Nick."
> >
> > Will
> >
>
>
