TU Wien:Einführung in wissensbasierte Systeme VU (Egly)/Übungen WS12/Blatt 3 - Beispiel 4
Zur Navigation springen
Zur Suche springen
You have the following information:
- There is a party.
- When there is a party, Paris is usually attending.
- When there is a party, Britney is usually attending.
- When there is a party and Paris is attending, then Britney does definitely not participate.
(a)
- Formalise this situation in terms of a default theory. It should have an extension indicating that Paris attends, as well as an extension that states that Britney attends. Use for “there is a party,” for “Paris is attending the party,” and for “Britney is attending the party.”
(b)
- Replace information 4. from above by a formalisation of
- (4’) If there is a party and Paris attends, then Britney usually does not attend.
- How does the default theory change? Which extensions emerge after this replacement? Are all of them plausible?
(c)
- Change your defaults in a way that only intuitive extensions emerge.
More precisely: the rule expressing information (4’), determining what Britney does when there is a party that Paris is attending, should have priority over the less specific rule expressing information 3), indicating what Britney is doing when there is a party. You are only allowed to change default justifications.
Lösungsvorschlag 3dm45t3r[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]
a[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]
b[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]
Scheint nicht plausibel da sagt, dass Britney gewöhnlich nicht die selbe Party besucht wie Paris.
c[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]
????