CodingForums.com - View Single Post - A theory of grammar that could produce a linguistically competent machine

nickreardon · 12-17-2011, 04:13 AM

so if string(any symbol) !=1 then ++
if string(any combination of symbols) !=1 then ++
so 1 would represent an item, and as long as it occurs more than once it is considered official.
so now the question is that given the highest number, can we prompt a response that also has the highest number within that environment. Take this for example.

Where did John go?
He went to the bathroom.

The string H+e occurs 168(arbitrary) times after the string J+o+h+n. Therefor, "John" most probably occurs with "he." Which means that given the input "John," we can respond most probably with "he." Did+Go -> went; where-> to the bathroom.

I know that this method alone will not produce a fully competent machine, but when we condition it with probable cooccurrences (or statistical correlations between items and operations) it will.

The idea is that it will build "knowledge."

12-17-2011, 04:13 AM	PM User \| #8
nickreardon New Coder Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Macomb, Michigan Posts: 41 Thanks: 6 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	so if string(any symbol) !=1 then ++ if string(any combination of symbols) !=1 then ++ so 1 would represent an item, and as long as it occurs more than once it is considered official. so now the question is that given the highest number, can we prompt a response that also has the highest number within that environment. Take this for example. Where did John go? He went to the bathroom. The string H+e occurs 168(arbitrary) times after the string J+o+h+n. Therefor, "John" most probably occurs with "he." Which means that given the input "John," we can respond most probably with "he." Did+Go -> went; where-> to the bathroom. I know that this method alone will not produce a fully competent machine, but when we condition it with probable cooccurrences (or statistical correlations between items and operations) it will. The idea is that it will build "knowledge." Last edited by nickreardon; 12-17-2011 at 04:32 AM..