TU Wien:Einführung in wissensbasierte Systeme VU (Egly)/Übungen WS12/Blatt 3 - Beispiel 4

Aus VoWi
Zur Navigation springen Zur Suche springen

You have the following information:

  1. There is a party.
  2. When there is a party, Paris is usually attending.
  3. When there is a party, Britney is usually attending.
  4. 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]

????