Lift-Style Predications
Not all words are associative with sets like “in” from the previous section: The verb “to lift” interprets sets vs. individuals as very different things. For example:
Students lifted a table.
…could mean:
- Two students (together) lifted a table (at the same time)
- Two students (separately) lifted a (different) table
This is a case where the prediction for “lift”:
_lift_v_cause(e1,x1,x2)
… can’t just check if each value of x1 is lifting a value in x2 and assume that means they are all also lifting separately or together. Lifting together means something different, and thus, unlike “in”, all combinations do need to be checked. There is a different helper that will do the logic for this scenario: lift_style_predication_2(). In contrast to in_style_predication_2(), the check functions need to be prepared for sets with more than one item and check if they are working together.
For this example, we’ll assume that “Elsa” and “Seo-Yun” are lifting “table1” together:
@Predication(vocabulary, names=["_lift_v_cause"])
def lift(state, e_introduced_binding, x_actor_binding, x_item_binding):
def check_items_lifting_items(item1, item2):
if item1 == ("Elsa", "Seo-Yun") and len(item2) == 1 and item2[0] == "table1":
return True
else:
report_error(["xIsNotYZ", x_actor_binding.variable.name, "lifting", x_item_binding.variable.name])
def all_item1s_lifting_item2s(item2):
if len(item2) == 1 and item2[0] == "table1":
yield ("Elsa", "Seo-Yun")
def all_item2s_being_lifted_by_item1s(item1):
if item1 == ("Elsa", "Seo-Yun"):
yield ("table1",)
yield from lift_style_predication_2(state,
x_actor_binding,
x_item_binding,
check_items_lifting_items,
all_item1s_lifting_item2s,
all_item2s_being_lifted_by_item1s)
So, lift_style_predication_1() works very much like the in_style_predication_1() from the previous section but calls the check function with sets.
Declaring Arguments that Understand Sets of More Than One Item
As written, however, these check functions will still only get called with a single item. That is because the helper functions won’t go through the work to generate all combinations unless a predication declares that it will use a set if provided. It’s too expensive to calculate if it will be thrown away.
To declare that lift() actually interprets meaning in sets, we declare which arguments semantically understand sets of more than one by adding information to the @Predication declaration, like this:
@Predication(vocabulary,
names=["_lift_v_cause"],
arguments=[("e",), ("x", ValueSize.all), ("x", ValueSize.all)])
def lift(state, e_introduced_binding, x_actor_binding, x_item_binding):
def check_items_lifting_items(item1, item2):
if item1 == ("Elsa", "Seo-Yun") and len(item2) == 1 and item2[0] == "table1":
return True
else:
report_error(["xIsNotYZ", x_actor_binding.variable.name, "lifting", x_item_binding.variable.name])
def all_item1s_lifting_item2s(item2):
if len(item2) == 1 and item2[0] == "table1":
yield ("Elsa", "Seo-Yun")
def all_item2s_being_lifted_by_item1s(item1):
if item1 == ("Elsa", "Seo-Yun"):
yield ("table1",)
yield from lift_style_predication_2(state,
x_actor_binding,
x_item_binding,
check_items_lifting_items,
all_item1s_lifting_item2s,
all_item2s_being_lifted_by_item1s)
Adding the arguments=[] list to @Predication() tells the engine that we want to override the defaults for arguments and declare them ourselves. The default for all arguments is to only have single values since that is much faster. Only predications which specially process sets should ask for them. The declaration for lift asks for them by setting ValueSize.all on both x arguments.
Other options for ValueSize are: exactly_one (the default) and more_than_one. more_than_one can be used when an argument only makes sense for more than one individual to be doing it. One example is the verb “met”.
Running the Example
As is, we can’t run the example, yet. We need to teach the system “students” and “tables” first. This is easy enough using the approach we used in our first topic about files:
@Predication(vocabulary, names=["_student_n_of"])
def student_n_of(state, x_binding, i_binding):
def bound_variable(value):
if value in ["Elsa", "Seo-Yun"]:
return True
else:
report_error(["notAThing", x_binding.value, x_binding.variable.name])
return False
def unbound_variable():
yield "Elsa"
yield "Seo-Yun"
yield from combinatorial_style_predication_1(state, x_binding, bound_variable, unbound_variable)
@Predication(vocabulary, names=["_table_n_1"])
def table_n_1(state, x_binding):
def bound_variable(value):
if value in ["table1"]:
return True
else:
report_error(["notAThing", x_binding.value, x_binding.variable.name])
return False
def unbound_variable():
yield "table1"
yield from combinatorial_style_predication_1(state, x_binding, bound_variable, unbound_variable)
Adding those, plus the implementation of _lift_v_cause above, allows us to have this interaction:
python ./hello_world.py
? students are lifting a table
Yes, that is true.
? a student is lifting a table
There are more than a student
? which students are lifting the table
('Elsa', 'Seo-Yun')
? a student is large
a student is not large
A few things to note:
Because we defined _lift_v_cause to only be true when both students are lifting the table, we get the (mangled) error, “There are more than a student”. This is trying to say “There is more than one student lifting a table”. We’ll go through how to fix the English on these in a future topic. Probably, we should add logic that allows either student lifting the table to be true as well.
Note that we can also use world like “large” from previous scenarios and they do work correctly (since we haven’t said either student is large in the system).
Next we will tackle event predications so that we can handle words like “very” and other modifiers.
Last update: 2023-05-16 by EricZinda [edit]