Re: Bound variables

Drew, I am puzzled as to what you are talking about.

>Suppose I am trying to describe a theory as an object.  (This is part
>of our "homework" assignment.)  For instance, I might want to
>formalize "Einstein was looking for a unified field theory."  This is
>perhaps too ambitious, but part of our assignment is to describe our
>projects, and many projects have, among other things, the goal of
>finding a "theory to explain X."  What sort of object is X in this
>sentence?  We might at this point start cataloguing the sorts of
>things that can be explained.

>However, I think this is going in the wrong direction.  Typically when
>you try to explain something you don't yet know exactly what it is you
>want to explain.  So there is a sentence of explain in which the X in
>"explain X" is a "situation" or "scenario," and to explain it is to
>answer questions about it.  You explain it to degree P if the
>probability that you can answer a random question on a topic related
>to the scenario is P.

Can you expand a bit on what you mean by a "scenario" here? (Let's 
avoid the word "situation" which already has at least three distinct 
technical AI/logical meanings, none of which I think you mean. 
Correct me if Im wrong.)

>Perhaps this is all wrong, but my main purpose in introducing it is to
>explain why we need to describe scenarios.

It would help to know what they were before trying to describe them.

>The obvious way to represent scenarios is with lambda-expressions,
>which bind variables that then take part in descriptions.

In the usual meaning of lambda-expressions, they denote functions 
(from whatever their variables are interpreted to denote, to the 
value of the body when the variables are so interpreted.) Should we 
infer that a scenario is a kind of function? (From what to what?)

>instance, if I'm trying to explain what makes cars go, the scenario
>might be
>(lambda (x y)
>   (is-a x car) & (is-a y human)
>   & (able y (cause (move x)))
>   & (method y (move x)
>             (push (lambda (z) (is-a z pedal)
>                               & (part z x accelerator)))))

That seems to be a binary function to a truthvalue, ie a relation. 
However it also seems to say that the way to make the car go is to 
push a function, which suggests that you don't have the usual 
semantics of lambda-expressions in mind. (Or else 'push' is some kind 
of higher-order functional (?))

>If I'm trying to explain the relationships between two ontologies that
>cover the same ground (as we in fact are), the scenario is
>(lambda (ont1 ont2 con)
>   (is-a ont1 ontology)
>   & (is-a ont2 ontology)
>   & (is-a con context)
>   & (often  (lambda (e1 e2)
>                   (expression e1 ont1)
>                   & (expression e2 ont2))
>             (lambda (e1 e2)
>                (meaning e1 con) = (meaning e2 con))))
>(often s1 s2) is a generalized quantifier that means
>"It's not unusual for a objects satisfying s1 to satisfy s2 as well."
>I hope the "metaness" of this example doesn't bother people.

I have no idea what metaness you are talking about, which may be the 
source of my puzzlement.

>If it
>does, rephrase the whole discussion in terms of cars and pedals
>instead of ontologies and meanings.

It seems to be about neither of these, but about functions.



IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax

Received on Wednesday, 1 November 2000 15:41:59 UTC