Ai Dreams Forum

Artificial Intelligence => General AI Discussion => Topic started by: ivan.moony on December 07, 2018, 01:32:40 pm

Title: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: ivan.moony on December 07, 2018, 01:32:40 pm
Here is Stanford Introduction to Logic (http://intrologic.stanford.edu/homepage/index.html), an online course on symbolic logic. I believe it covers the most interesting knowledge of logic in general. Enjoy :)
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 07, 2018, 02:07:35 pm
FINALLY

All these professors and everyone talking about induction etc, now we got it right here. Of course, I read wiki, etc, and my own work.

I'll see if I get anything out of it.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 08, 2018, 08:08:06 am
So far its gold 100%.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 08, 2018, 03:45:40 pm
Lol what made you find this ivan? Are you reading it yourself? Btw how much of a Logic expert are you?

What else goes with it? Any other material? Just as an example, does Chaos Theory go with this? LSTMs? Some more abstract form of this on some higher level? Sorta like its chocolate, hence, maybe you got vanilla, of which not only is good/related too but also tops it and makes it 260% better.

Lol it has the alice in wonderland infurl
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: ivan.moony on December 08, 2018, 04:34:44 pm
Lol what made you find this ivan?

I was designing my own logic and wanted to name it "relational logic". Then I googled it up to check if the name is taken. Then I stumbled upon Stanford material, realizing that they use name "relational logic" as a synonym for predicate logic. Still, I didn't see the same naming anywhere else, but I'm pretty sure they are describing what is widely accepted by the name predicate logic. But it's a Stanford, I guess they can allow themselves to push in their own naming standards.

Are you reading it yourself?

As for reading material, I was reading a book with a similar content some twenty years ago and I liked it very much. I was thrilled to see the Stanford edition with some additional content and I wanted to share it here. The edition is written in very readable language, which added some pluses for sharing it. What I like about the book is that it shows how to describe knowledge in a way that we can extract answers from it. Still, keep in mind that it shows only fragments (the most of books of this kind do) which you have to connect on your own. For example, it is not possible to read this material and then sit down and program something meaningful right away. Some glue connecting pieces is missing, but I believe it is a status of scientific logic research these days. Researchers mostly care about abstract scientific value, and less about the real world use.

Btw how much of a Logic expert are you?

You can say that I understand a bit of logic, propositional and predicate more thoroughly, and higher order in some lesser extent. So, if you don't understand something, don't hesitate to freely ask, maybe I can answer.

What else goes with it? Any other material? Just as an example, does Chaos Theory go with this? LSTMs? Some more abstract form of this on some higher level? Sorta like its chocolate, hence, maybe you got vanilla, of which not only is good/related too but also tops it and makes it 260% better.

What else goes with this edition? Well, It's subject is knowledge, so an answer would be anything that can be known. Theoretically, logic is supposed to be the starting point for anything else that takes a form of thought. In practice, it contains a certain level of abstraction, so you may find it necessary to drift it gently towards specific use. I propose (after reading the material) to google up your newly created ideas and questions, just to see where the world can get you.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 08, 2018, 05:24:27 pm
That's ok, I am a puzzle-putter-together-machine, digesting bits of info. Even 'if' it doesn't contain an overview of all Logic or all the details, it still is a good resource. I can see/realize the AGI overview, and fill the details.

Little confused on something, with the Sorority Girls case with many input sentences given. In one side of my mind I see it as sequence prediction after the input "Bess likes Cody. Cody doesn't like Abby. Etc. Etc." where the prediction has to satisfy all conditions....HAHAHAHAHAHA...........while on another side of my mind I see it as saying 'find a fact that is green, small, thin, and grown outside' in your 'DB'................while on another area of my brain it means the sum of their Truths satidfying everything enough.................while on another location in my brain tells me it is it suggest trying Induction more...............while on another planet of my brain says it says given those 4 sentences, infer new facts from them like Abby doesn't like herself HUHWHA WHAT THE YOU KIDDING ME I'm lost... And to think this is the tip of the iceberg on my todolist, there's so much involved to do!! This is just some of my work, just /some/ thoughts.

Next, I notice it uses punctuation plus operators, with an order. This defines bond order/structure...and how to assign Truth  O M G... Down the rabbit hole. Essentially we have here a structure with truth assignment, while the proposition/conclusions/inferring/predictions or 'implications' are one part of the AND/OR/NOR/NEGATE/IMPLY/BIIMPLY...not even sure why it jumped from x=y=z to truth assignment despite they are closely used, hmm, maybe it means if x=y then it must be related to its truth to get assignment?
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 08, 2018, 06:58:34 pm
Also, need clarification here
http://intrologic.stanford.edu/public/section.php?section=section_02_05

The pattern I found after observing the truth table is that it seems that if p or q on the left is a 1 (true), then both the 2 after the arrow gotta be true, otherwise only one must ex. R.........again: that's what I infer from their truth table at least...

However, it says q & r.....why is the sentence or even the right side half True if both q & r are not true in one row that says it would be?
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: Korrelan on December 08, 2018, 09:00:36 pm
A truth table for a propositional language is a table showing all of the possible truth assignments for the proposition constants in the language

 :)
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: ivan.moony on December 08, 2018, 09:34:10 pm
P, q and r are not connected anyhow there. If you read on, later you will find out the other side of truth table, and that is an expression that makes a truth table make sense. For example, this is a truth table of `and` operator:
Code

 p   q   |p ∧ q
----------------
 1   1   |  1
 1   0   |  0
 0   1   |  0
 0   0   |  0


Truth table can be constructed for any operator combination. In chapter 5.2, page 5, they put `x` where `p ∨ q ⇒ q ∧ r` is false (instead of making new column containing values of `p ∨ q ⇒ q ∧ r`).
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 09, 2018, 03:13:10 am
No make sense still... You have an input sentence and sum up its Truth to either 0 -or- 1, and there is possible ways it will output a 1 or 0, yes, yes, right?......hmm, but given 4 sentences like the Sorority World example, what if the goal was to find or generate a sentence output that satisfied the input?  ;p3
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 09, 2018, 09:22:32 am
can you give me sentences that would be these? http://intrologic.stanford.edu/public/exercise.php?exercise=exercise_02_02

ex. like "If I eat and sleep then I am alive"

confused here because it says the Truth of    p ⇒ q ∧ r    is False...but the   p ∧ q ⇒ r    should be too...
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: ivan.moony on December 09, 2018, 09:57:14 am
It's good, implication operator works that way. Expressed differently, A -> B means ~(A & ~B).

Read on, there is a complete truth tables for major logical operators: http://intrologic.stanford.edu/public/section.php?section=section_02_03 (http://intrologic.stanford.edu/public/section.php?section=section_02_03). You should be able to sing them in the midnight.  ::)
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 09, 2018, 11:47:23 am
Take a close look here: http://intrologic.stanford.edu/public/exercise.php?exercise=exercise_02_02

on some of the results shown (click show results), it implies it is OK if   p & q => r   I.E p & q = 0 and then 0 => 1 wtf? Only 1 => 1 no? How does a false imply a true?

It's like saying if you are alive and smoke then you won't make it. Both conditions must be true - "AND"
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: ivan.moony on December 09, 2018, 12:46:58 pm
on some of the results shown (click show results), it implies it is OK if   p & q => r   I.E p & q = 0 and then 0 => 1 wtf? Only 1 => 1 no? How does a false imply a true?

This is the story about implication: It is possible for cause not to happen, but consequence still to be true (due to some other possible causes). In fact any truth assignment is possible except cause to be true and consequence to be false. If cause is there, consequence must be also there.

False can imply true, here is the proof:

Code
  False -> True
---------------------
  (¬False) ∨ True
---------------------
  True ∨ True
---------------------
  True

The interpretation could be: within lies could be anything, including a truth.

Let's try the other way around:

Code
  True -> False
---------------------
  (¬True) ∨ False
---------------------
  False ∨ False
---------------------
  False

The interpretation would be that within truth there can't be lies.

used rules of inference are:
A -> B ⊢ ¬A ∨ B
¬True ⊢ False
¬False ⊢ True

It's like saying if you are alive and smoke then you won't make it. Both conditions must be true - "AND"

Code
YouSmoke -> YouDontMakeIt

The interpretation is as you read IF you smoke THEN you won't make it. But it is also possible not to smoke, and not to make it anyway because i.e. you regularly run across a highway, or you regularly swim with sharks.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 09, 2018, 12:51:20 pm
Gonna read that wait, but here's something I just realized, it may shock you to see this lol (result at end):

So we can figure out if a sentence or part of it is true or false, we can infer new true or false facts from it ex. if it is true using "p or q" and we have another timbit saying "q => b" and b is true then we know q is true. And if I tell you a sentence saying true and false and unvalidated things like "Food is good. If food is good then I am a billionaire." then of course we first must validate before can discern how true the sentence is. Let's look at "If pigs are cute and alive then clouds are evil or I brush my teeth" - here we have a going to be validated as false fact and a wider fact (If pigs are cute and alive then I brush my teeth) while the small part in it is true yes but  ya this wider one will too be false once validated and hence the sentence is false: c & a => c |  b -------- 1 & 1 => 0 | 1 --------- 1 => 1 --------- 0 !!!!!

Moral of the story: just because 2 facts are both 1s as shown at end, doesn't mean the final number will be 1!
All parts of a node must be validated as either True or False/satisfied.....A....B....and AB....all 3 nodes of the pyramid hierarchy if you want AB node to be true! (all its parts including itself)

  O
O O
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 09, 2018, 01:21:56 pm
Disagree. Watch: If I say "If pigs are blue and metal then I will sleep tonight." yes yes consequence can be true....let's look at the nodes in this sentence:

make up we didn't say pigs...if we do then blue/metal/blue&metal are false (0). Let's say blue/metal/blue & metal are true since fine in the real world as facts.
blue & metal => sleep
1 & 1 => 1
1 => 1
0

Think of these 3 constants as nodes in a hierarchy:
  O
      O
O O  O

In my example, yes the lower 3 are true, but the bigger parse/part is false. Not to say I will sleep is false, but the answer saying if x and v then s is wrong, I don't need it to be so to sleep. Ok it's true but if it means I will suddenly sleep then no false node. It's about validation, not if all are true in last layer. So no, if cause is false then effect can be true - yes, but not this node/sentence sometimes. And also no, if cause is true but effect is false, the top 3rd node again can't be true. We /know/ the lower 3 small parts of speech are true or not, ya, how/why? Cus of validation/proving, but top node 3 must be validated too, and yes it's parts can help out, but it doesn't mean for sure it is true. Again watch - "If pigs sleep then I shower.". [[][]] - [][] are true but [    ] is false.

"If I am blue is false and I am a pig is false then I will sleep tonight."....here we have 2 false leaf nodes and a true 3rd one....the 2 false become (in the processing, not the nodes no they don't change) true by negation, however the final node as whole is false since I don't require them to be false ahem true. Ok as said above same thing, nevermind. It can be true in some cases ex. if I am or not am a blue pig. But not if mean I will suddenly sleep. Time for another: "If I am blue is false and I am a pig is false then I will sleep tonight."......ok this one: "If fire is hot and cows can go to sleep then I will began eating." Here, we need a cause, a true cause, but the right cause (If I am served food I want and am hungry).

"If cows fly is false then I do have more room to fly in the sky."....here the false stays false in memory but is made true for here for now.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 09, 2018, 01:24:21 pm
edited
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 09, 2018, 04:58:56 pm
P.S. I got it now, put it together, now I can start Lesson 3.0....unfortunately there is some changes I made, of course their knowledge is a starting point, I have modified my theory now, integrated it (some I mean, their theory isn't perfect, unless further content changes my mind).
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: Art on December 10, 2018, 04:25:42 am
If cows fly then I think I'll just stay indoors! ;)

Seriously Lock, you seem a bit rattled as if trying to find something or some examples that don't fit the proof model or perhaps some other logical area.

Do give things a thorough go around before posting a disagreement and maybe things will become clearer to you.

And is inclusive, Not is exclusive, Or is either, Nor is neither. Sometimes we humans can overthink things.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 10, 2018, 05:54:23 am
"If my computer speaker turned to lava then I would freak out." --- True
s => f
1 => 1
1
The first small fact is false but because of the 'if' it ahem um isn't. Same for saying NOT (negation) ex. "If pigs don't fly then I have more room in the sky to fly my jet."

My theory has it that we only speak true things, at least be believe are true ex. "Earth is flat.". False are not saved, hence no 'negation' is possible. Positive and negative nodes are saved and true. Negation is just nodes saved that are true like "I am not lava." ('not' can be placed almost anywhere). Neutral = false. True nodes have ranks. If you lie to someone and say something false, then you either use or generate a saved false that is sitting alone unrelated in brain, and you only say it when 'good' (reward) is around if you can prove reason to why to say it.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 10, 2018, 06:20:39 am
see above post too


Indeed, mind boggling!! My todolist aka my artificial Working Memory enhancement was shrinking, now it's double in size cus this course lol! But I'm happy. Now I gotta clean up my todolist after the storm that I solved! My main LTM storage (my notes lol) is in a super huge notepad file. Yesterday wasn't good, played with a GAN for 5 hours, then 8 in my chair on Logic lol.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 10, 2018, 12:00:42 pm
Got any more Stanford courses like this public one?
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: Art on December 10, 2018, 12:38:27 pm
Not Stanford Lock but MIT courses that you can audit for Free online!
The listing is pretty extensive from cognitive science, pattern recognition, Brain Structure, and its Origins, and so much more!

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/find-by-topic/#cat=science&subcat=cognitivescience (https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/find-by-topic/#cat=science&subcat=cognitivescience)
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 10, 2018, 01:32:08 pm
So I take it the courses I checked out only have that small amount of text as the lecture? There is nooo material, despite it says there is full absolutely there....

I go to a page, and have the side menu on left hand side, yes, but each of those pages Online have only some writing.......ain't no book here...........as for book, apparently there is a book they use and I don't have it! The list of its parts shows a amazon link, oh come on! Do I really have to find the books? Now I see pdf links, lots, but they want cash for knowledge!

What gives lol?

And what gives here, no, come on, is this single one course suggesting you read say 9 of these books or more? I take like 2 or more weeks on a single book...or longer sometimes
file:///C:/Users/A/Desktop/9-916-fall-2001/contents/readings/index.htm
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: 8pla.net on December 10, 2018, 07:12:01 pm
Ivan,

Would you mind previewing
my new prototype, Emo, here?



      Hello Sir,
 ()_/ Mr. Moony
<\/   I'm Emo.
 []
 ][


Emo is a codename for a simulation
of a physical state for abstract ideas.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: ivan.moony on December 10, 2018, 07:24:58 pm
simulation of a physical state for abstract ideas? What do you have in mind?
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: 8pla.net on December 10, 2018, 07:27:32 pm
Thanks Ivan,

Logic is useful for a smart interface,
before connecting an A.I. engine. Here
is an exclusive preview of my prototype,
code name Emo: 

http://chatbot.ml/emo/

Emo starts learning, using for example:

LEARN the sun IS hot

LEARN an apple IS a fruit

LEARN water IS wet

LEARN planets ARE round

Note: Not case sensitive, "learn A is B"
works, as does "learn Cs are Ds".

However, Emo has no artificial intelligence
engine to apply learning to responses.
So if you ask Emo, "WHAT IS water?" at this
point Emo will not respond, "wet" yet. Emo
stops after learning tuples and placing
them in a table.  That's where you
come in, Ivan, if you wish.

Ivan, please advise, about relational logic,
in terms of using tuples in a smart interface,
before giving the control to an A.I. engine.

Emo has basic emotions. Visual
reactions to fear, comfort, embarrassment,
being focused, bored, happy etc.
Emo has predicate logic depending on
the stimulus, such as to censor curse words.

Emo may show emotions, using for example:

I hurt you

You are boring

You are liked

Focus on it.

In conclusion, Emo is not an advanced system.
Emo is a research system designed to simulate
a physical existence for abstract ideas.

If Emo is down, that is just me programming.
Just wait a minute or two, and Emo will wake up
again for you.

The goal is not to become an A.I. but to prepare
the stimulus for an A.I. to get a head start in the
interface.



Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: 8pla.net on December 10, 2018, 09:59:50 pm
Training blocked output temporarily

However, "fish = animal" was learned.

Notice how it prepends the tuple

instead of appending it.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: ivan.moony on December 10, 2018, 10:50:10 pm
8pla.net, i'm afraid you caught upon a huge task. Natural language processing and logic isn't developed that much to be capable to implement the complete version just like that. Even if you learn the proposed Stanford material, there is still a big chance you'll respond to it like "This stuff is unfinished!", or "If it takes this much to learn this fragment, how much does it take to learn, or invent the whole system?" You know that story - the more we know, the more we realize we don't know. But I think the the story extends to - the more we know, the less we are certain it is correct. Right now, the science has a fragment in a form of: propositional calculus, predicate logic and higher order logic. But it wasn't enough (at least it was that much abstract), so mathematicians recently started to invent topological space theory, category theory, and probably some more ambitious areas I'm not yet aware of. Scientists are even writing a collaborative open source book of knowledge theory that anyone can contribute to. You should see all that mess lost in a vast of complicated scientific papers, it almost seems like it never ends.

The point is: no one currently has a capability to answer how to connect a natural language (I propose Treebanks) piece to reasoning logic (whatever form it takes, logic, lambda calculus, type theory, ??? ). If you are inventive enough, you could be the one to connect all the pieces, but the question is how much time you are willing to spend. A few weeks? A month? A year? Two? Ten? The whole life? It is hard to compose something meaningful in a short time, but it is not impossible if you are lucky, at least luckier than I was. Some perfect scenario would be: (1) learn a bit - program it and show it; (2) learn more - program more and show it; (3) invent atop of all that - program it and show it; (4) ...; (X) conclude AGI - program it and enjoy. That would be the perfect scenario, but I wasn't much lucky to extrapolate the checkpoints to do something meaningful. Some curse was all the way above me, blasting and smudging the checkpoints to unrecognisability, forcing me to reach the final AGI, without letting me to have a satisfaction to implement the fragments on the way. I simply didn't have anything that worked as a fragment, but was only a piece of a broken whole that can't be programmed because it is contradictory. Finally, I gave up, pinning myself to the ground. However, I still hope - not to reach AGI - but to walk out of all this mess with something that could be used in the real world. I'm hoping for a scientific language based on logic. I'm trying to get out of all I learned by now, and it still isn't as trivial as I could expect after all these years of reading scientific papers and having more or less delusional thoughts about improvement I should be able to accomplish on the way.

I'm  not complaining (I'm glad I tried to do something in my life), I'm just exposing the status of my knowledge - a lots of fragments, I can do this and that (mostly manipulate formatted scientific knowledge), but I have no idea how to round more or less pieces into a meaningful whole other than the language I'm developing.

That being said, I'm probably the last person that should direct the development of Emo. But that doesn't mean I couldn't help with answers. But to do than, I need more specific questions. Try to gather your thoughts, place imperatives, ask yourself what exactly do you want Emo to do, how much time you want to spend, and then pose your questions. I'll be around with my theoretical logic knowledge, and I'll be happy to answer anything that's in my humble mind.

Specifics, please. Otherwise I'm as lost as an atom in the Universe.

For a start, could you please specify what do you want Emo to be able to do, if I didn't scare you off with the dragon named Logic?

[Edit]
I just thought of something I posted here some time ago. Maybe you'll be interested in element-subset-set (https://aidreams.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=13077.msg52816#msg52816) reasoning fragment. I think it takes the time to read the Stanford material from this thread (you have to know the resolution method), plus some few weeks to implement the fragment in Javascript, or something. Sorry, I've got nothing simpler for now.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: 8pla.net on December 11, 2018, 12:50:09 am
Ivan

I converted your markup language to source code to test the results:


STEP 1. Markup

<x> is a <X>.
<x> is a <A> or <x> is a <B>.
<x> is a <A> and <x> is not a <B>.
If <x> is a <A> and <x> is a <B> then <x> is a <C>.

STEP 2. Code

$x is a $X.
$x is a $A or $x is a $B.
$x is a $A and $x is not a $B.
If $x is a $A and $x is a $B then $x is a $C.

STEP 3. Data

$x="Ivan";
$X="genius";
$A="teacher";
$B="student";
$C="brainiac";

RESULTS:

Ivan is a genius.
Ivan is a teacher or Ivan is a student.
Ivan is a teacher and Ivan is not a student.
If Ivan is a teacher and Ivan is a student then Ivan is a brainiac.1

____________________________________________________________________________
1 An exceptionally intelligent person.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: ivan.moony on December 11, 2018, 01:16:18 am
You make me blush.

  :)

Better find some girl, I'm of no use, I don't respond to compliments well.

 :-*
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: 8pla.net on December 11, 2018, 02:50:22 am
Now, Emo may highlight its learning.
For example, enter something with
the word "fish" and Emo highlights
"fish = animal" in red.

Added from the log...

learn a shark is a fish

Now Emo highlights
"fish = animal" and "shark = fish"  in red.

« Edit Notes:  Added latest test run
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: Art on December 11, 2018, 04:06:43 am
@ Lock,

Sorry, I inserted an incorrect link.
I had much better luck locating the audit type of courses via YouTube as in this link.

Those others (previously shown) were for actual courses online.

Try this link:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=MIT+audit+courses (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=MIT+audit+courses)
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 11, 2018, 07:31:51 am
(p ∧ ¬p) is unsatisfiable

"Sometimes you are hungry and sometimes you are not hungry."
(1 & 1)
(1)

Dis-proven.



Saying "pigs don't fly" is True. Saying "Pigs fly" is False, but saying "if pigs fly" is true even though its parts are false. Their statement is true... only if the latter is "pigs fly", not because of a negation.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: ivan.moony on December 11, 2018, 08:44:32 am
Lock,

What you wrote translates differently to a logic. (P & ~P) would be translated from "I'm hungry & I'm not hungry", and it is indeed contradictory.

I think "Sometimes" has to do something with existential quantification dealing with different time intervals. I think you need predicate logic to express it, propositional logic is not enough. But it's a brain teaser, I have to admit.

[Edit]
here:
ThereExist time1. ThereExist time2. (Hungry(time1) & ~Hungry(time2))
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 11, 2018, 10:23:51 am
I'm on 4.2 section, doing good or slow turtle snail am I?

I feel a departure/disagreement, so I'm reading it all but taking less bits per amount of reading. Also it's becoming quite confusing and math-like lol.

Still, they say things in line with my work nevertheless. So it's good to read.

another test for you lol:
Is the following whole thing True?: "The following sentence is True if at least 1 is True (I could say all but one or 3 etc, or False if at least 1 or etc is False) "I can jump. I can swim. I can reach the sun's core. I can eat.""



So Section 4.6 said instead of using truth tables to determine if a sentence is true by its atoms that we should instead assume parts of it as other parts by checking each others truths match enough?
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 11, 2018, 01:31:59 pm
see above:

P.S., I woke up this morning in the middle of my sleep saying "and the propositional logic derivatives..." and was like oh no...lol...clearly it was running through my WM once 'me' awoked
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 11, 2018, 03:58:26 pm
see above


You'll like this one lol:

{p, q} p or q is true....{¬q, r} q is false or r is true....If q is false, then by the first clause p must be true. If q is true, then, by the second clause, r must be true. Since q must be either true or false, then it must be the case that either p is true or r is true. So we should be able to derive the clause {p, r}

p=born in mom
q=alien instead
r=grew up with alien
either I was born in my mom or an alien..........either I wasn't born in an alien or I grew up with a alien
I was born in my mom or I was born in an alien and grew up with the alien
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: Art on December 11, 2018, 09:12:26 pm
Hey Lock,

Here's one of my favorite T-shirts containing a bit of logical "choices" or perhaps not so much...Either way, it doesn't look very good for humans.
So much for logic...
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: 8pla.net on December 11, 2018, 09:35:40 pm
Emo has learned negation.  The symbol of negation is: ~

Example:

INPUT: Learn the world is not flat

OUTPUT: world ~ flat

TRANSLATION:   world not flat

Reference:  http://chatbot.ml/emo
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 12, 2018, 08:35:06 am
If anyone wants Logic to be incorporated into an AGI, you'll have to twist it in and out from where it is now, of course. Make something new, but come up with the answers.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: ivan.moony on December 12, 2018, 11:11:31 am
Art, here is another one, hehe  ;D
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 12, 2018, 11:19:46 am
Excellent, Ivan, Excellent! Very well laid out. It seems ready to implement. I would be scared too, it seems it is not any good!

On Lesson 6....I don't have the time to grasp it at full fledged details, so, ivan, a lesson back or so, can you explain in pure English using an simple example of concept explaining what it means about the "eliminate double negations"? Is that like two sentences in premises that both contradict or say "it is not the case..."? Or something else like a meta technique with clauses like sidestep an alley just to reach the roof like a ninja (meta jobs)?
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: ivan.moony on December 12, 2018, 12:37:13 pm
It's simple:
(~ ( ~ x)) -> x
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: Art on December 12, 2018, 01:12:41 pm
"I'm not going to not pick you".
(two negatives in English) = positive...You are going to get picked.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 12, 2018, 01:31:11 pm
Yay I get it now.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 12, 2018, 02:02:12 pm
"I'm not going to not pick you".(two negatives in English) = positive...You are going to get picked

I am hungry and full.......................I am hungry I am not hungry..................she is god I am god

cancel out self destruct annihilation

contradictions are futile!
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 12, 2018, 03:58:15 pm
Got any more tricks like that double negatives one you can explain? Especially the more deeper ones that I may not be able to witness in the deeper chapters since I'm derailing it a big now.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: ivan.moony on December 12, 2018, 05:21:33 pm
Seriously, the most interesting chapters are 11: induction and 12: resolution (deduction). It's up to you.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 12, 2018, 05:35:46 pm
in chapters 1-4 or so, is it true they are saying we are discovering sentence x is like sentence y by their truths being similar? I don't think that's a good way to do that..."I can drive and sit" is not "pigs look very pink and cute" even though it looks like 1 & 1, 1 & 1

This reasoning/deduction, is using truth, or something other? Explain the main ingredient...
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: ivan.moony on December 12, 2018, 05:38:56 pm
Induction is discovering new truths. Deduction is extracting all the possible implicitly contained truths.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 12, 2018, 06:41:38 pm
Ok. I took a fast scan of the site. You may know I analyze each word in the Lessons so to not miss 'anything', and so right now I did a fast heuristic and didn't listen to my old way for the time being. The chapters seem to be named and there's a pattern: PROPOSITIONAL Logic>Analysis>Proofs>Resolution, then RELATIONAL, then HERBRAND, below I give a brief summary of them, which may only make sense if you read it all below. I know they all don't have Analysis etc but it's, close. Can you tell me if this is close to correct, or fix it/rewrite it, or give me your own summary of the chapters?

PROPOSITIONAL - facts, etcetcetc.
Chapter1Logic - taking facts
Chapter2Analysis - looking at what they are (truths etc) 101011010010
Chapter3Proofs - comparison!!! faster way! comparing premises to conclusion proof, why 2 facts are 'same'/identical
Chapter4Resolution - a faster way

RELATIONAL - faster, looking at *individual sentences
Chapter5Logic - looking at *individual sentences
Chapter6Analysis - if we do that, then here's how to look at their truths etc
Chapter7Proofs - comparing premises to conclusion proof
Chapter8Resolution - a faster way

HERBRAND - how to but with any possible terms in an infinite language
Chapter9Logic - howto
Chapter10Analysis - howto
Chapter11Proofs - howto
Chapter12Resolution - howto
-------it seems they start using trees/hierarchies in Herbrand?

I don't think this does justice over the tricks in the lessons but it should do justice in explaining the overview of it all.

Soooo, in essence it says Herbrand is the better of the 3 ways? And it's all about taking a set of sentences and entailing it to the conclusion?
    What is the goal, and the next shallow goals? To discover mini facts? Facts? What is true/false? How? Using premises. How?
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: ivan.moony on December 12, 2018, 06:49:05 pm
This is the part I was talking about before. After learning some logic, you are left to yourself to connect pieces on your own, or to learn more in a hope to get answers. Going further into details brings less and less people who can answer your questions. I'm afraid I'm reaching that set of people who are unable to answer.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 12, 2018, 06:54:12 pm
Could it be said that, once you know Propositional Logic (chapters 1-5), you really get the just idea of what entails in Relational and Herbrand (the later chapters) even if the way is very different? It's re-iterating the same goal, but by different method, right?
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 12, 2018, 07:01:06 pm
found this so far
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-predicate-logic-first-order-logic-second-order-logic-and-higher-order-logic

so RELATIONAL LOGIC is just FOL?
and HERBRAND is just HOL?
lol
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 12, 2018, 07:22:58 pm
see png

IOW, having read chapters 1-5, I already have been from start-to-finish of the concept?
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: ivan.moony on December 12, 2018, 07:24:11 pm
Yes, relational logic described in the Stanford material is predicate (first order) logic, and it is extension of propositional logic. Higher order logic is an extension of first order logic, but it brings some of undecidability regarding to first order logic (I don't know the details).

Unfortunately, I don't know much about Herbrand logic.

But, see Herbrand's theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbrand%27s_theorem) for connection between propositional and predicate logic. I'm using something similar in my own research.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 12, 2018, 07:45:36 pm
Boolean Logic
Propositional Logic
Predicate Logic
First Order Logic
Relational Logic
Second Order Logic
Higher Order Logic
Herbrand Logic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

gotta get sleep, be back tommorow
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 13, 2018, 07:05:34 am
"if" switches false to true, and true to true, else you have this issue:

"If pigs fly then I will freak." Here we have a problem with their theory. If 'if' negates then it will mess up the truth of "If I'm served food then I begin eating.", whereas if 'if' doesn't negate then it makes "If pigs fly then I will freak." false when it should be true. Solution is my way. Node "pigs fly" is false but saved as true so you can speak it, "If pigs fly" is true saved, and both top nodes of these 2 in quotes are true too as long as seen as valid even if contain wrong. If anything, 'if' is a flipper that makes false/true things true. Ok. But I still believe my way. I believe the sentence is true based on its validation process even if has a wrong in it - not by the sum of its truths.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: Art on December 13, 2018, 01:35:26 pm
IF is a Function that allows one to make a comparison by testing for a condition to be either True or False.
THEN basically satisfies the argument.

IF the result of Column A >27 THEN goto or use Column B
or
IF your guess is red THEN you get $100 else you get no $$
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: ivan.moony on December 13, 2018, 02:30:47 pm
If also has some deeper insights. For example, "if X is bird then X can fly" can be written as:

Bird(x) -> Fly(x)

Which translates to:

~Bird(x) | Fly(x)

Now, conveniently if we say "Bird(x)", resolution rule automatically asserts "Fly(x)". But also, less obvious, if we say "~Fly(x)", resolution rule asserts "~Bird(x)", which means "if X can't fly, then X is not a bird".
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: 8pla.net on December 13, 2018, 04:42:45 pm

learn if there is light then day else night

learn if there is light then it is day else it is night

learn if (there = light) then (it = day) else (it = night)

learn[] = there = light ? it = day : it = night ;

PHP:
$light=rand(0,1);$learn[]=$there=$light?$it="day":$it="night";

The choice is decided at random.  Locate the middle equals operator in the color coded source. Should logic set (=), or compare (==), $there to $light?


Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: ivan.moony on December 13, 2018, 04:59:29 pm
That's a tricky question. In logic, there's no distinction between getters and setters. Refer to documentation about logic for more details.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: 8pla.net on December 13, 2018, 05:20:11 pm
Thank you Ivan.

I am starting by converting the simplest logic to source code.
When it works with the simplest logic as source code, then I think
there is a point in building upon that foundation.

Per your request...

Code
<script language="JavaScript">
function learn(there) {
  var light=Math.floor(Math.random() * Math.floor(2));
  return (there=light ? "day" : "night");
}
var there;
console.log(learn(there));
</script>

Console log displays "day" or "night" at random.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 13, 2018, 05:40:04 pm
Is the material really saying to assign truths to things if its parts are true? Really? How does something's parts being true make the thing they make true?

Edit: ex. "I can eat and sleep."
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: ivan.moony on December 13, 2018, 05:45:40 pm
Lock,

Not in all cases. If we have a sequence:

A1 | A2 | A3 | ...

then only one element has to be true for the whole sequence to be true. On the other hand, if we have:

A1 & A2 & a3 & ...

then all the elements have to be true for the whole sequence to be true.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 13, 2018, 06:10:20 pm
Yes, I got that about the OR :p
Including how in some cases only the later has to be true

The following has 2 facts combined (separated by a comma) "My hat on my desk, sucks up dirt.". When you have a sentence made of smaller true parts, how can the sentence be true so long as the smaller parts are true?

We need premises.
Remember the Art Bob Carl example? The conclusion is "Bob murdered Victor.". And it required premises like who said who was in town and knew him etc.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 14, 2018, 12:55:03 pm
"Rocks sleep."

The atoms of this sentence are true. Rocks is true. Sleep is true.

1 1

But the bigger 'part' they build; "Rocks sleep.", is false, there's countless examples ex. "rocks eat" etc.

Following the Course on their site, it suggest the truth of the sentence "Rocks sleep." is:

1

Because both children are 1.

The sum of them is therefore 1.

Right? This is wrong... How does it / does it solve this?
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: ivan.moony on December 14, 2018, 01:34:25 pm
You need predicate logic to express that:

(∀x∊Rocks).Sleep(x)
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 14, 2018, 01:39:21 pm
...Huh? How does that figure out if the part they build is true? Premises? You'd need prehand knowledge to determine if it's true.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: ivan.moony on December 14, 2018, 02:12:35 pm
When you have a whole compound sentence that is true, there are rules that say which parts should be true for the whole sentence to be true. If sentence is composed of only one part [i.e. Sleep(x)] than that part has to be true. Otherwise, the sentence is false.

You may see quantificators as a sentence modifiers that allow variables to range over sets. That is why quantificators itself can't have any truth value assigned - as a parts of a sentence. Only predicates - as a parts of a sentence - can have assigned a truth value.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 14, 2018, 04:30:33 pm
In English, you mean the training data / the premises sets / the base knowledge, is 'marked'/tagged with rank truths, and that to determine one's truth requires modifiers that can validate it and then assign over truth?
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: ivan.moony on December 14, 2018, 05:26:58 pm
We may have a set:

car ∊ Vehicles; train ∊ Vehicles; plane ∊ Vehicles


Now, to say:

(∀x∊Vehicles).Rides(x)

it is the same as we write:

Rides(car) ∧ Rides(train) ∧ Rides(plane)


But if we say:

(∃x∊Vehicles).HasWheels(x)

it is the same as we write:

HasWheels(car) ∨ HasWheels(train) ∨ HasWheels(plane)
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 15, 2018, 07:02:09 am
car, train, plane = vehicle
vehicles = rides, has wheels

New unseen input is: "Car has wheels."

How do we find the sentence is true?
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 17, 2018, 08:58:12 am
On chapter 11

(Need some examples using English sentences, for induction.)
P.S don't use the water boils in case1, case2, case3, hence it always boils....no lol...the below clearly is something deeper going on...

Can someone explain in English an example of the below in the real world? Like Art did showing how we eliminate 2 'nots' in "I'm not going to not pick you.".

I see lots of interesting words like "to match   the antecedent of the premise" "implication introduction" "strip away" and so on, show all this in your reply.



"The relationship holds the other way around as well. Given ∀x.(∃y.p(x,y) ⇒ q(x)), we know that ∀x.∀y.(p(x,y) ⇒ q(x)). We can convert an existential quantifier in the antecedent of an implication into a universal quantifier outside the implication."

"Our proof is shown below. As usual, we start with our premise. We start a subproof by making an assumption. Then we turn the assumption into an existential sentence to match the antecedent of the premise. We use Universal Implication to strip away the quantifier in the premise to expose the implication. Then, we apply Implication Elimination to derive q(x). Finally, we use Implication Introduction, and we generalize using two applications of Universal Introduction."
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 20, 2018, 01:02:21 pm
Now I completely understand induction and deduction and abduction.

Ind/Ded:
For all, for some, and for a related.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 20, 2018, 02:18:30 pm
Inductive Reasoning:
Jennifer leaves for school at 7:00 a.m. Jennifer is always on time. Jennifer assumes, then, that she will always be on time if she leaves at 7:00 a.m.
Every windstorm in this area comes from the north. I can see a big cloud of dust caused by a windstorm in the distance; so, a new windstorm is coming from the north.
Bob is showing a big diamond ring to his friend Larry. Bob has told Larry that he is going to marry Joan. Bob has bought the diamond ring to give to Joan.
The chair in the living room is red. The chair in the dining room is red. The chair in the bedrrom is red. All chairs in the house are red.
Every time you eat peanuts, your throat sweels up and you can't breath. So, you are allergic to peanuts.
Two-thirds of the students at this college receive student aid. Therefore, two-thirds of all college students receive student aid.
Michael just moved here from Chicago. Michael has red hair, therefore people from Chicago have red hair.
John is an excellent swimmer. John's family has a swimming pool. John's sister Mary must also be an excellent swimmer.
All children in the day care center like to play with Legos. All children, therefore, enjoy playing with Legos.
Ray is a football person. All football persons weigh more than 170 pounds. Ray weighs more than 170 pounds.
All observed houses on the South Street are falling apart. Sherry lives on South Street. Her house is falling apart.
&
~All observed small people are right-handed, therefore all right-handed are small people and all small people are right-handed.
John and Joe are friends. John likes to sing, write and read. Joe likes to sing and write. Therefore one assumes that Joe also likes to read.
~Every time John eats shrimp, he gets cramps, and therefore he assumes that he gets cramps because he eats shrimp.
~John is an amazing athlete. So John's son too will go on to become an amazing athlete.
~When chimpanzees are exposed to rage, they tend to become violent. Humans are similar to chimpanzees, and therefore they tend to get violent when exposed to rage.
~The woman in the neighboring apartment has a shrill voice. I can hear a shrill voice from outside. There is a high probability that the woman in the neighboring apartment is shouting.
~All the dogs which were subjected to routine diagnosis had fleas, so one concludes that all the dogs have fleas.
~The Philadelphia Falcons have won their last four matches in a one-sided contest, and therefore their fans conclude that the Falcons will win their fifth match as well.
~Every time you get a call from some unknown number, you find a telemarketer on the other side of the line. It makes you conclude that if it's an unknown call, it is most likely to be a telemarketer.
~You see a dog chasing a cat in your neighborhood a couple of times, and start believing that the two animals cannot be kept in one house.
~A few episodes of a particular sitcom make you laugh, and you conclude that the said sitcom is very funny.
~100 pens are kept in front of you. On checking the first 10 pens, you note that 5 had black ink and 5 had blue ink, and therefore you conclude that half of the 100 pens are black and half are blue.

Deductive Reasoning :
In mathematics, If A = B and B = C, then A = C.
Since all humans are mortal, and I am a human, then I am mortal.
All dolphins are mammals, all mammals have kidneys; therefore all dolphins have kidneys.
Since all squares are rectangles, and all rectangles have four sides, so all squares have four sides.
If Dennis misses work and at work there is a party, then Dennis will miss the party.
All numbers ending in 0 or 5 are divisible by 5. The number 35 ends with a 5, so it is divisible by 5.
To earn a master's degree, a student must have 32 credits. Tim has 40 credits, so Tim will earn a master's degree.
All birds have feathers and robins are birds, so robins have feathers.
It is dangerous to drive on icy streets. The streets are icy now so it is dangerous to drive now.
All cats have a keen sense of smell. Fluffy is a cat, so Fluffy has a keen sense of smell.
Snakes are reptiles and reptiles are cold-blooded; therefore, snakes are cold-blooded.
Cacti are plants and all plants perform photosynthesis; therefore, cacti perform photosynthesis.
Red meat has iron in it and beef is red meat, so beef has iron in it.
Acute angles are less than 90 degrees and this angle is 40 degrees so this angle is acute.
All noble gases are stable and helium is a noble gas, so helium is stable.
Magnolias are dicots and dicots have two embryonic leaves; therefore magnolias have two embryonic leaves.
Elephants have cells in their bodies and all cells have DNA, so elephants have DNA.
All cars have at least two doors and a Ford Focus is a car, so the Ford Focus has at least two doors.
All horses have manes and the Arabian is a horse; therefore Arabians have manes.
&
Other Patterns of Deductive Reasoning:
Some deductive reasoning does not follow the classic reasoning pattern of A = B and B = C, then A = C. Some examples of other patterns are:
Be careful around bees, they might sting you. (The reasoning is understood that all bees might sting.)
It takes me an hour to get to the mall. If I leave at five o'clock I will reach the mall by six o'clock.
That dog is growling so be careful or you might get bitten. (It is logical is the dog is angry, he might bite.)
The apple hit me on the head because of gravity.
There are three people in my family. Each one is tall, so everyone in my family is tall.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 20, 2018, 03:09:51 pm
rich hang with rich
trash hang with trash
relatives hang with relatives
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 20, 2018, 09:38:26 pm
this is gold haha

short, and lots of tricks towards the lower half end
https://www.dvusd.org/cms/lib011/AZ01901092/Centricity/Domain/4781/ArgumentationPPt.postrevised.3rdq.pdf

The AI book, gotta read this stuff:
http://solr.bccampus.ca:8001/bcc/file/5d41a649-ce0f-4462-bc3d-564568b5c857/1/Logic%20text%20v%201.4.pdf
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: Korrelan on December 21, 2018, 10:41:58 am
Everything is true... it's true that something is false.

 :)
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 21, 2018, 10:50:14 am
Yes that's what i say, "lions don't fly" is true, "lions fly" shouldn't be saved since false.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: Korrelan on December 21, 2018, 11:06:40 am
But.... 'Lions fly' has to also be saved, otherwise how will the AI know it's false.

At the lowest level of abstraction everything is true.

 :)
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 21, 2018, 11:19:58 am
True.

I say that too.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: Art on December 21, 2018, 01:38:55 pm
Unless it is in a book about Fantasy or like Harry Potter where odd things can and do fly and other things that could never be true are suddenly true.
Perhaps it's akin to a parallel dimension or alternate universe.

Maybe sometimes false things are true. It largely depends upon which side of the mirror one is standing! O0
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 21, 2018, 02:09:39 pm
My lion I am is sitting on the roof, eating korrelan, to computer bits, eating AI Dreams forum, and talking to Art 24/7, keeping secrets and telling lies, and it also told Freddy to be quite. The lion became Art. Earth split open and out came metal korr to go to Burger King and meet Hana the witch.

:p

Installing false beliefs lol.

Birds can fly.
Lions are blue, have 2 eyes, a mouth, and a brain.
Birds are blue, have 2 eyes, a mouth, and a brain.
Therefore lions can fly.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: Korrelan on December 21, 2018, 03:13:30 pm
It’s always true that something is false but never false that something is true.

It’s true 1 + 1 = 2 is true/ correct
It’s true 1 + 1 = 3 is false/ wrong

It’s false 1 + 1 = 2 is false/ wrong… is still true.

 ;D
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: Art on December 21, 2018, 04:40:17 pm
My lion I am is sitting on the roof, eating korrelan, to computer bits, eating AI Dreams forum, and talking to Art 24/7, keeping secrets and telling lies, and it also told Freddy to be quite. The lion became Art. Earth split open and out came metal korr to go to Burger King and meet Hana the witch.

:p

Installing false beliefs lol.

Birds can fly.
Lions are blue, have 2 eyes, a mouth, and a brain.
Birds are blue, have 2 eyes, a mouth, and a brain.
Therefore lions can fly.

Com on Lock...A lot of things are similar in many ways much like people, but it is often our Differences that make us unique.

What is different between a bird and a lion?
A bird has wings and can fly.

Does a lion have wings and can fly?
NO.

There are many cultures, however, in which one might find a winged lion.
https://stillunfold.com/history/winged-lion-the-terrifying-mythical-creature-in-different-mythologies (https://stillunfold.com/history/winged-lion-the-terrifying-mythical-creature-in-different-mythologies)

To us, more modern people, most of us view these as merely myths so the notion is a Truth and Falsehood.
Or as Korr would say, "It is True that they are false."  O0
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: ivan.moony on December 21, 2018, 04:55:10 pm
Speaking in terms of logic, we can say:

X -> False

which mean that statement X is false. Observing truthfulness, the whole statement is true, although we can't say just

X

because it would be false. Instead, we should write:

¬X


Anyway, In logic, It is possible to prove that from ¬X follows X -> False.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 21, 2018, 06:34:24 pm
Art, it was a joke.

If you save "lions don't fly" and "lions fly"......you'd be saving ~L and L.....hence, you save both and rank the false very low in most cases, the other negated one is just words, too. It's positive lots though.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: Korrelan on December 21, 2018, 06:54:09 pm
@Ivan

Any statement that makes ‘human logical sense’ is ultimately true.

It’s the level of abstraction combined with our definition of true/ false that causes the ambiguity… and one of the main reasons why I believe we can’t base an AGI on human derived logic.

It’s a catch 22, you can’t use a higher level concept (true/ false) to describe the workings of the intelligence that devised the concept.

 :)
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 21, 2018, 07:03:13 pm
Things are indeed false kor, like I Lock have never even once used a computer EVER. Yes, it's 'true'...I said it just now...I can even permanently store it if I try, if I want. But......the knowledge is BS. No good. And the generator aint supposed to be doing that all the time. It becomes good in a moment like this.

IOW, there's purposeful and purposeless knowledge, and true and false knowledge....there's also positive and negative knowledge I think...........we can save and speak and believe purposeless or false or negative things like fries on a dresser in arts room or i can fly or people die & i will put 5 needles in your eye run...
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 21, 2018, 07:13:31 pm
continueing:

SO: We can save and rank up high no good knowledge like ones that are purposeless or never can/did happen, but, the nature of Good has it we end up coming to purposeful and can/did happened knowledge & ways since they bring Reward to you.

In the right time, you can see a match, where suddenly you take or generate something 'no good' and say it cus it brings reward for the time being.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: Korrelan on December 21, 2018, 07:14:24 pm
Lock it's impossible to make any logical statement that's not true.  Using the common high level definition of true/ false any statement that makes logical sense is true... the keyword here is logical.

Ok... lets test it... show me a logical statement that's not true...

 :)
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 21, 2018, 07:17:16 pm
Korrelan doesn't work on anything AI-related.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 21, 2018, 07:49:18 pm
Don't be scared to admit it korrelan that it is true.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: ivan.moony on December 21, 2018, 07:50:24 pm
@Ivan

Any statement that makes ‘human logical sense’ is ultimately true.

It’s the level of abstraction combined with our definition of true/ false that causes the ambiguity… and one of the main reasons why I believe we can’t base an AGI on human derived logic.

It’s a catch 22, you can’t use a higher level concept (true/ false) to describe the workings of the intelligence that devised the concept.

 :)

It is not "human based logic", logic is something higher than that. We may consider logic as a form of Universe set of rules. I believe we can't find anything contradictory inside this Universe, just like we can't travel faster than speed of light.

But if we want to lie, we have to wrap it in a form that conforms rules of the Universe:

False -> ... write anything you want here, being truth or falsehood ...

But if we want to say a truth, we better watch what we are doing:

True -> ... write only non-contradictory set of statements here ...

It is a contradiction that's not allowed around. Contradiction simply doesn't exist at the lowest level. It can be only embedded in the above statement about falsehood. But are humans contradictory, that's another question. I believe that merely notion of existing is contradictory, so I supose this would apply:

False -> alive

Lock it's impossible to make any logical statement that's not true.  Using the common high level definition of true/ false any statement that makes logical sense is true... the keyword here is logical.

Ok... lets test it... show me a logical statement that's not true...

 :)

I'm not Lock, but if you would take my answer, here it is:

X & ~X

It is called a contradiction. However, the following is true:

(X & ~X) -> False

or, if you like it this way, it's the same truth:

~(X & ~X)

which, when we apply De Morgan's laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan%27s_laws), becomes:

~X | X

which is by accident tautology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)) (meaning it is true in all models, no matter if X alone is true or false)
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 21, 2018, 07:58:31 pm
Put another way....everything we say or believe is all just particles.......................if we generate/say computers are awesome or trees are made of metal - we only do so because we get reward. It's all a reward pass-around thing.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 21, 2018, 08:01:37 pm
Same for saying "I am tall I am short, is false" or "I am tall I am short". Here we refute to say it cus cancel out or no reward, but we may because of reward.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: Korrelan on December 21, 2018, 11:18:22 pm
Quote
logic is something higher than that.

Where did we humans find the laws of logic written down?

All the rules of logic are devised by humans; they are our interpretation of reality, based on human observations/ calculations and ultimately devised/ filtered by human minds.

Quote
just like we can't travel faster than speed of light.

The speed of light is the limit of our understanding/ observations, it may be a finite limit our it may not, how fast does quantum entanglement travel? Current estimates range up to 10,000 times faster than light.

We used to think humans would suffocate if we travelled faster than 40 mph, then came the locomotive to prove us wrong and we revised our thinking… my point being that we are still discovering/ learning.

As far as true/ false is concerned I was careful to always state that it must be a logical statement.  At the lowest level of abstraction if any logical statement makes any logical sense then it must be true/ a truth, otherwise what would be the point of the statement… it wouldn’t achieve/ calculate or represent anything meaningful.  The truth comes from the meaning/ usefulness of the calculation, does the logical statement make sense, yes or no… true or false.

Is it true it logically makes sense?... levels of abstraction.

 :)

Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: ivan.moony on December 22, 2018, 10:15:05 am
It is true that the whole science is subjective and relative to humans. It is an open question how would a science of another species (on this or another planet) look like.

 But as long as we can predict (or approximate) dynamics or statics of observed systems, that knowledge is more than welcome.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: Korrelan on December 22, 2018, 11:23:43 am
Quote
It is true that the whole science is subjective and relative to humans.

Indeed… don’t get me wrong I’m not saying that our logic doesn’t have its uses, obviously it does, we have been to the moon after all lol.

I just feel that a true AGI can’t be based on our logic, we can’t use a schema designed by an intelligent system to build a copy of the original intelligent system.

Plus humans/ intelligent systems use many different types of intelligence not just logic.  Visual intelligence for example, I’ve created a quick demo…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPbg5pcWQko

Note the answers are ‘logical’ and correct but no calculations were performed.

Quote
It is an open question how would a science of another species (on this or another planet) look like.

Again I agree, we are limited by our understanding and probably by our reality.  We can only perceive three spatial dimensions so all our ‘logic’ is grounded and indeed only makes any sense in our reality… but there could be more…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0WjV6MmCyM

 :)
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: ivan.moony on December 22, 2018, 12:15:01 pm
Quote
Plus humans/ intelligent systems use many different types of intelligence not just logic.

All those types should be expressible (I hope) in Turing complete systems. And logic (at least, some forms if it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence)) declares as a Turing complete system, just like Haskell, C++ and Assembler.

But can human mind and intelligence really be expressed in Turing complete system? Can the Universe be expressed in it? At least, which part of the Universe?
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 22, 2018, 03:14:38 pm
Don't be fooled Art, everything is unique, at the same time, everything is related! This is where you gain power. Relations.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: Art on December 22, 2018, 07:08:20 pm
Lock, my friend, I'm hardly fooled any longer. I used to do magic where everything I showed was both real (true) and deceptive (untrue/false) at the same time. So the statement that I did something false is still true even though my actions were false. Reality is often in the eye of the beholder.

OK...now that you've bombarded the board with all these posts and you've learned practically everything you need to know about LOGIC, how are you now going to implement this knowledge into your A.I. (chatbot/digital assistant/robot/AGI entity) and when?? Curious minds want to know.

Best wishes!
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 22, 2018, 08:30:07 pm
Logic, LSTMs, and GANs are related. Logic uses premises, makes conclusions, and requires 'Validity' and 'Soundness'.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: Art on December 23, 2018, 04:32:51 am
Lock, Please read over my post one more time and try not to be a politician by evading the question. ;)

Just curious as to your progress, especially with your programmers for hire and whether you feel you're (they're) making progress working toward your goal. That's all...no tricks, just interested.  - Thanks!
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 23, 2018, 01:11:11 pm
I have a completely working system on paper, nothing huge, but something important and it will change the field.

I know what it does. And how it works.

And, it's not trivial as in 'will it work?', it will, because it's so simple, and so many things connect together it's ridiculous.

I haven't started much yet though, but soon. I still have to find a coder also, it seems I got lucky the first time around. I've talked to many coders, many very qualified, hence I think my last job was just ultra confusing, thankfully I've moved onto part3, which does part2 anyway. Hence it may be easier to do now. Of course, though, part3 includes a lot! More like 4 parts.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 23, 2018, 01:54:58 pm
So far it costed me 800 dollars, and I may need another up to 5000 dollars. So I'm doing some ebay too on the side...I made 250, and soon hopefully over 2000 dollars from ebay.

Those coders can be ultra costly!
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: Korrelan on December 23, 2018, 03:10:11 pm
@Lock

You have shown a basic grasp of the various types of logic, and I know you like making lists...

Ffs... just try some simple programming dude...

 :)
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 23, 2018, 03:33:14 pm
I seen what she coded me....no way I'm doing that any time soon lol.

"and I know you like making lists..."
huh?
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: Korrelan on December 23, 2018, 03:44:19 pm
I hope she commented/ documented the code sufficiently, so your next coder doesn't have to start from scratch lol.

Quote
huh?

Lock you are always making/ posting lists of ideas, information, links, etc.  programming basically involves a big list lol.

 :)
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 23, 2018, 04:08:33 pm
Surprisingly, the woman didn't comment a single thing. She just made a 3 page docs for it and said it's complete when I was talking money with her. Here my new coder said he can't read it. But said "it's not scary at all".

Unfortunately I lost my first coder :(
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: Korrelan on December 23, 2018, 04:19:00 pm
Did you check down the back of the sofa?

 ;D
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 23, 2018, 04:21:07 pm
Took her ~2 days to code most of it, given a fine short video I made.

Charged me 32$ per hour for just mostly talking (~65% of our time)
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: Korrelan on December 23, 2018, 04:56:00 pm
I’ve worked as a bespoke programmer for many years; you never agree a full hourly rate for an open ended project… you will actually end up paying more for a crap coder.

You pay for projects in stages, eg...

30% on specification and placement of order
40% on coding completion and demonstration of all functions, etc
30% on satisfactory completion of user testing and final handover

The most important things are to specify your requirements as clearly as possible, keep it as simple as possible and clearly identify the essential functionally you require… and request regular progress reports.

Break the project down into manageable/ provable blocks that you can test before getting the next block done.

 :)
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 23, 2018, 05:10:24 pm
She said she switched to hourly because I wasn't being clear enough lol. And I ain't eva doing hourly again lol.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: Art on December 23, 2018, 05:14:11 pm
Very sound advice indeed!

With that coding make Sure he or she is Documenting and Commenting throughout the code in case something happens to your coder.

Also, consider having your project broken down in separate parts or modules so that the entire idea of your project is not discoverable by the coder(s).

Modules are best for secrecy and are best for not having your project/idea stolen and rebranded by someone else.

This means holding back your complete trust in just one person and delegating these modules to different programmers.

Sorry, but I have seen stuff like this happen so many times in the past to nice people who trusted everyone too much. Just be cautious!
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 23, 2018, 09:01:52 pm
One guy 2 months back liked my algorithm before I got it fully coded (first part of the idea...), he began making a variant on his own for free and never botherered with me much nor wanted to share the code but showed pics.

Just recently now, one coder I spoke to lots said he's too busy at the time I said I'll be ready, but will help me organize it......maybe steal it lol? What fool would not work with me on it and just be quite afterwards though. But he said he'll help make it easier for the next coder...for free...
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: Art on December 23, 2018, 09:53:05 pm
Lock,

There are also many Free Legal sources on how you might go about crafting a Non-Disclosure Agreement for potential Coders to sign BEFORE they press the first key on the keyboard. This should spell out their duties and let them know, in no uncertain terms, that the project they are working on is Confidential and any Disclosure would be subject to criminal prosecution under the laws of your state or applicable Federal laws. The Agreement should also provide a reasonable amount of time to expire if they are employed then subsequently leave your employ before they can set about creating anything of a similar nature to your project, basically "borrowing" ideas from your project to call their own.

Not to scare any potential coders but to let them know that you are taking this project very seriously and so should they.

If they refuse to sign or balk in any way, then you probably wouldn't want them on your team anyway.

Just a few more thoughts for what it's worth.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 25, 2018, 01:46:25 am
Just want to say again, this book has been possibly the best book I've read:
http://solr.bccampus.ca:8001/bcc/file/5d41a649-ce0f-4462-bc3d-564568b5c857/1/Logic%20text%20v%201.4.pdf

Almost done it. It is the real book of Logic, idk what could be missing! Got all the tricks. Even many great examples infurl will love. Make sure to take your notes as read, as always.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: ivan.moony on December 25, 2018, 03:18:34 am
Lock, the link doesn't work here.
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 25, 2018, 01:42:53 pm
What? I tried clicking both of these god-send links and they work, the 2nd one just takes time to load - you can see it load in blue at top, watch.

Nonetheless, I will also attach both as pdfs. If you want logic/AI, you gotta read these 2. The first one is small btw.

The 2nd pdf is in the post below since too big or something.

https://www.dvusd.org/cms/lib011/AZ01901092/Centricity/Domain/4781/ArgumentationPPt.postrevised.3rdq.pdf

http://solr.bccampus.ca:8001/bcc/file/5d41a649-ce0f-4462-bc3d-564568b5c857/1/Logic%20text%20v%201.4.pdf
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 25, 2018, 01:49:04 pm
PDF is just over the 8MB limit.......cannot upload it............

Here
Google:
logic version 1.4 pdf
and click the 2nd link called:
Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking - SOL*R
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: LOCKSUIT on December 25, 2018, 03:12:37 pm
Because of that book and my related work and reads, I am ahead of korr and ivan - no matter how many neural nets you code!

:P

I mean seriously? Playing around with gradient decent weights doing chaotic functions not having a clue what you're aiming for? Compared to the structure in this book? :D

Gotta go top-down, use your desire!
Title: Re: Anyone wants to learn logic?
Post by: ivan.moony on December 25, 2018, 03:45:07 pm
I'm out of the game, I'm not building AGI anymore. If you want to compete, look further, but I don't recommend it. Just do what you think you have to do and don't mind the crowd.