This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Backward chaining article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I changed The example to reflect changes I made to Forward chaining. --CH
1. If Fritz croaks and eats flies - Then Fritz is a frog 2. If Fritz is a frog - Then Fritz is green
The conclusion in the 5th paragraph: Fritz croaks and eats flies, so must be green; Fritz is green, so must be a frog.
This is inconsistent with the rules of inference. Did you mean "Fritz croaks and eats flies, so must be a frog; Fritz is frog, so must be a green"? --DL
This example is just wrong - it is forward, not backward chaining.
Why is the backward chaining example the same as the forward chaining example if they are different?
This article isn't very clear.
134.225.254.250 08:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The article is about computer science terms. If anything, they should be merged to Expert system. WLU 22:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
It's a close one. I'm usually for merging, it seems like everyone wants to create a Wikipedia article but far fewer want to make them good. Sorry, I'm editorializing. Anyway, I actually came to this article thinking perhaps it should be merged. I just finished what was essentially a complete rewrite of the article on Expert systems. But as I look at this article it looks pretty good (surprisingly so actually a lot of the AI articles were not so great) and goes into more detail than I did or want to in the articles on Expert systems, knowledge-based systems, etc. So I recommend we keep it. RedDog ( talk) 23:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
The part of the explanation of the example where it is concluded that Fritz is a frog mentions "and not a canary". I'm pretty sure that we can't actually prove Fritz isn't a canary. We, as humans, intuitively know that something cannot be both a canary and a frog, but there is no rule to that effect in the knowledge base, thus the algorithm cannot conclude it. I think that phrase should be deleted. I'm not going to do it myself because I'm not 100% positive I'm right... 71.88.110.253 ( talk) 20:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I've taken an overview class on Game Theory and I've used many expert system shells but I don't ever recall hearing anyone say that what you do by working backward in game theory is "backward chaining". I do see the point though, I actually remember when I was taking the Game Theory class and the professor was talking about it I thought "oh its analogous to backward chaining in an inference engine" but I don't recall ever seeing that mentioned in a book or article on either topic and if not I think we should remove it. I notice there are some refs here I need to check out perhaps they support it. RedDog ( talk) 23:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
In the intro it says "but it [backward chaining] has also been observed in primates". There are no references for that and I doubt that the two existing references talk about primates, they are both computer science books. I think it's just takes us too far afield for no reason to leave that statement in and will delete it. RedDog ( talk) 00:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Backward chaining/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
== Rated as logic2 stub == Also part of computer science project. See talk on problems with article example; citing source of it could help. Curing dead link and adding refs will also help. Also see talk on merge proposal. Hotfeba 18:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 18:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 19:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Backward chaining article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I changed The example to reflect changes I made to Forward chaining. --CH
1. If Fritz croaks and eats flies - Then Fritz is a frog 2. If Fritz is a frog - Then Fritz is green
The conclusion in the 5th paragraph: Fritz croaks and eats flies, so must be green; Fritz is green, so must be a frog.
This is inconsistent with the rules of inference. Did you mean "Fritz croaks and eats flies, so must be a frog; Fritz is frog, so must be a green"? --DL
This example is just wrong - it is forward, not backward chaining.
Why is the backward chaining example the same as the forward chaining example if they are different?
This article isn't very clear.
134.225.254.250 08:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The article is about computer science terms. If anything, they should be merged to Expert system. WLU 22:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
It's a close one. I'm usually for merging, it seems like everyone wants to create a Wikipedia article but far fewer want to make them good. Sorry, I'm editorializing. Anyway, I actually came to this article thinking perhaps it should be merged. I just finished what was essentially a complete rewrite of the article on Expert systems. But as I look at this article it looks pretty good (surprisingly so actually a lot of the AI articles were not so great) and goes into more detail than I did or want to in the articles on Expert systems, knowledge-based systems, etc. So I recommend we keep it. RedDog ( talk) 23:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
The part of the explanation of the example where it is concluded that Fritz is a frog mentions "and not a canary". I'm pretty sure that we can't actually prove Fritz isn't a canary. We, as humans, intuitively know that something cannot be both a canary and a frog, but there is no rule to that effect in the knowledge base, thus the algorithm cannot conclude it. I think that phrase should be deleted. I'm not going to do it myself because I'm not 100% positive I'm right... 71.88.110.253 ( talk) 20:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I've taken an overview class on Game Theory and I've used many expert system shells but I don't ever recall hearing anyone say that what you do by working backward in game theory is "backward chaining". I do see the point though, I actually remember when I was taking the Game Theory class and the professor was talking about it I thought "oh its analogous to backward chaining in an inference engine" but I don't recall ever seeing that mentioned in a book or article on either topic and if not I think we should remove it. I notice there are some refs here I need to check out perhaps they support it. RedDog ( talk) 23:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
In the intro it says "but it [backward chaining] has also been observed in primates". There are no references for that and I doubt that the two existing references talk about primates, they are both computer science books. I think it's just takes us too far afield for no reason to leave that statement in and will delete it. RedDog ( talk) 00:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Backward chaining/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
== Rated as logic2 stub == Also part of computer science project. See talk on problems with article example; citing source of it could help. Curing dead link and adding refs will also help. Also see talk on merge proposal. Hotfeba 18:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 18:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 19:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)