| To: | edbark@xxxxxxxx, "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Cc: | "[ontolog-summit]" <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| From: | Simon Spero <sesuncedu@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | 2012年5月24日 16:52:30 -0400 |
| Message-id: | <CADE8KM6BbtOPVpOaQG4Z2MYKHQv8KYi78rdS+KrZZ7Qw0tPTdQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Are they not countable?
If you mean "bounded", I doubt it. If you mean "countable" in the Cauchy sense -- they can be algorithmically placed in 1-to-1 correspondence with the natural numbers -- I won't hazard a guess.
One possible approach to making a WAG would be to take a random sample of entries from an encyclopedia and convert them to a logical form. Only add new entries to your fact base if they aren't already implied by facts from other entries. Make a guess at a forumula for estimating the number of new facts for entry n+1, find the integral then use it to guess how many facts are in all entries. It's not always algorithmically possible to tell if a fact is implied by existing facts, but since this is a WAG, you can just put a time or depth limit.
Simon
_________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (01)
| Previous by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Estimating number of all known facts , doug foxvog |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] [ontology-summit] Estimating number of all known facts , doug foxvog |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] [ontology-summit] Estimating number of all known facts , Ed Barkmeyer |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] [ontology-summit] Estimating number of all known facts , doug foxvog |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |