COMMONSENSE-ANALYSIS -

 COMMONSENSE-ANALYSIS - 

A general, rough algo for ROUGHLY JUDGING via analysis, given : a pair of events in consecutive sentences.

It is also akin to the mind's processing and the possible cognitive confusions and misleading possibilities it brings along while data-processing.

Algo : 

1. See the second event/action.
   
2. See who did it upon whom (who are the Doer and Doee)
3. See who all (agents) are there in the whole scene.
4. Assign (/re-assign) agents in the scene, in the slots (/ to the entries in the slots) of Doer and Doee, using (simple mathematical) possibilities.
5. Apply commonsense from KB. 

* This is an Analysis toolkit. 

   This can lead to various useful commonsensical "leads", by evaluating and enumerating interpretations / (uncommonsensical) misinterpretations, of a pair of              events in general.

   

EXAMPLES -

1) John was playing the guitar. Suddenly he received a call. 

1. received a call

2. Doer - ? Doee - He

3. John, Guitar, call

4. i) He received a call from John ii) He received a call from the guitar iii) He received a call from the call iv) John = He ( understood by the program) v) Guitar = He (NA) vi) Call = He (NA)

(Above are 6 of the 9 possibilities. The rest 3 aren't considered since they all involve assigning He to the 3 agents, which is rejected as shown above).

'He' is John, is understood by the program.

5. i) John called John. Cruelly misleading! ii) Guitar cannot call John. There are no phones in guitars. So John didn't receive a call from the guitar iii) A call is not capable of acting on its own. 

2) John called the waiter. He asked him to get french fries.

1. asked him to get french fries

2. Doer - He (?) , Doee - him (?)

3. John, waiter, french fries

4 & 5. i) John asked the waiter to get french fries ii) Waiter asked John to get french fries (invalid, from KB) iii) 'John asked FF', 'FF asked John', 'Waiter asked FF', 'FF asked waiter' are eliminated by the program knowing that He and Him cannot apply to FF. iv) Since the word 'himself' is absent, John telling John & Waiter telling waiter are rejected

The first possibility is the valid pronoun assignment.

3) John was watching TV. He remembered a chore.

1. remembered a chore

2. Doer - He (John), Doee - chore

3. John, TV, chore

4 & 5. (He) John = John , chore = John   -> John remembered John. -> John remembered himself.

    (He) John = John , chore = TV       -> John remembered TV.      -> John remembered something about the TV.

    (He) John = John , chore = chore  ->  John remembered chore -> Normal; as given.

    (He) John = TV , chore= John        -> TV remembered John      -> TV showed John the chore. TV showed something which reminded John of the chore.

    (He) John = TV, chore = TV           -> TV remembered TV           -> Absurd.

    (He) John = TV, chore = chore       -> TV remembered chore      -> TV had chores programmed in it for reminder to the viewer.

    (He) John = chore , chore = John   -> chore remembered John  -> Remembering requires a mental agent which chore isn't.

    (He) John = chore , chore = TV      -> chore remembered TV       -> Remembering requires a mental agent which chore isn't.

    (He) John = chore  , chore = chore  -> chore remembered chore -> Remembering requires a mental agent which chore isn't.