Measuring Meaning on the World-Wide Web

06/09/2010 ∙ by Diederik Aerts, et al. ∙ Vrije Universiteit Brussel 0

We introduce the notion of the 'meaning bound' of a word with respect to another word by making use of the World-Wide Web as a conceptual environment for meaning. The meaning of a word with respect to another word is established by multiplying the product of the number of webpages containing both words by the total number of webpages of the World-Wide Web, and dividing the result by the product of the number of webpages for each of the single words. We calculate the meaning bounds for several words and analyze different aspects of these by looking at specific examples.

READ FULL TEXT VIEW PDF
POST COMMENT

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Authors

page 1

page 2

page 3

page 4

This week in AI

Get the week's most popular data science and artificial intelligence research sent straight to your inbox every Saturday.

References

Aerts, D. (2009a). Quantum particles as conceptual entities. A possible explanatory framework for quantum theory. Foundations of Science, 14, pp. 361-411.

Aerts, D. (2009b). Quantum structure in cognition. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53, pp. 314-348.

Aerts, D. (2010a). Interpreting quantum particles as conceptual entities. International Journal of Theoretical Physics.

Aerts, D. (2010b). A quantum mechanical model for the World-Wide Web. Preprint Center Leo Apostel, Brussels Free University.

Aerts, D. (2010c). The Conjunction Fallacy on the World- Wide Web. Preprint Center Leo Apostel, Brussels Free University.

Aerts, D., Czachor, M., D’Hooghe, B. and Sozzo, S. (2010). The Pet-Fish problem on the World-Wide Web. Preprint Center Leo Apostel, Brussels Free University.

de Kunder, M. (2010). The size of the World Wide Web. http://www.worldwidewebsize.com/

Osherson, D. N. and Smith, E. E. 1981. On the Adequacy of Prototype Theory as a Theory of Concepts. Cognition, 9, pp. 35-58.

Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1983). Extension versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90, pp. 293-315.