Evidential overlap in structural transformation preventing rule application

[TonyLo1]

Following example fails to answer question

<(coffee * juice) --> opposite>.
<([bad] * [good]) --> opposite>.
<juice --> [good]>.
//check for derivation
<[good] --> (opposite /2 coffee)>? //Answer: <[good] --> (opposite /2 coffee)>.
10
<coffee --> [bad]>? //Answer: None

The above intermediate answer is: Answer: <coffee --> [bad]>. creationTime=8 Truth: frequency=1.000000, confidence=0.373020

Following does answer question but requires a manual entry to create a non-overlapping stamp

<(coffee * juice) --> opposite>.
<([bad] * [good]) --> opposite>.
<juice --> [good]>.
//force new stamp by manual entry
<[good] --> (opposite /2 coffee)>. {1.0 0.3}
100
<coffee --> [bad]>?

Answer: <coffee --> [bad]>. creationTime=41 Truth: frequency=1.000000, confidence=0.323546

Low confidence truth used to confirm not low truth value related.

There is an additional issue related to term reduction - the related term reduction ( <-> ) rules were disabled for the above test cases.

[PtrMan]

Should a implementation solve this with additional rules like in narjure or should there be a special handling for the evidential overlap check?

[patham9]

Solved by #16, needs 50 steps though not 10, which is still fast.

[patham9]

just to add explanation: it wasn't an evidental overlap issue, just aggressive statement reductions which are now identity rules. (when inheritance is reduced to similarity there would be no image transformation possible thereafter, unless rules for image transformations on similarity are added)