Jyte needs logical and set operators to connect claims.
By
Oscar J Carlton IV
on February 20, 2007
This would allow verification of a voter's consistency. For example, if I vote for "If [claim A] then [claim B]", then vote for Claim A and vote against claim B, the system could flag me as inconsistent, remind me tactfully, or label me as a bot. Doing it with natural language is more of a challenge, but not impossible.
Agreed
38
4
90.5% 9.5%
Embed Claim
Make a related claim
This claim was inspired by
Claims inspired by this one
- 7-1 OWL could provide constructs for set operations about jyte claims
- 16-4 Any enhanced voting syntax could be transparent to users who didn't care to see it.
Similar claims
- 39-164 This claim is about everything
- 36-6 A claim with no logic value (neither true nor false) should not be voted on either way.
- 37-1 Claims should be able to reference other claims directly, e.g. if [Claim A] then [Claim B].
- 24-22 By voting on Jyte's automatically generated claims, we will be teaching it to understand human language at a higher level.
- 34-16 Jyte won't let you make a claim with the f-word in the title.
Discussion (3)
Good suggestion in my opinion. But I wouldn't think this was a good suggestion to implement fully into jyte.
;-)
Claims inspired by this comment
Controversial (read: nerdy) features can be rolled out on an opt-in basis.Peoples opinions change with time depending on mood. People are inconsistent on some topics.
Different phrasing would have some people disagreeing with something they might previously have agreed with etc...
Naturally; it's all fuzzy, and I didn't say it would be easy or should necessarily be implemented at all. Your comment doesn't say anything against the actual claim.