Discuss whether the english language input really held.

What does this question mean? I don't really know. 
Here are a few of my reflections on the problem set.

I think that the english language input held in the sense that it was
correctly translated into the appropriate things in the huh ontology. 
Of course the range of expressions used was fairly limited. If
sentences not intended for the dating world were parsed using this
package, it would produce some nonsensical results. Putting checks on
the type of various things would help here. The adjectives for example
should all "make-sense-for" humans. The subject of the noun phrases
for the "seeker" and "seekee" should be humans. The preposition "for"
in a sentence which is an instance of "seeking" should be an activity.

This assignment brought up examples how how much information would
need to be encoded in order to more deeply understand the input.

For example the phrase "sensitive yet strong" makes sense in a way
that "muscular but strong" does not. Clearly the word "yet" implies a
contrast. However it is along a subtle dimension, as "sensitive" is a
dimension of something like "sensibility" and "strong" is a dimension
of "physical or emotional fortitude". The contrast comes from which
end they are on their respective scales, and our expectations or
stereotypes of how these scales relate.

The notion of traits needs to be strengthened, to bring in some kind
of scales. At the moment traits only match if their "english" names
correspond to the same value, e.g "intelligent" and "brainy" both map
to "has-traits intelligent".


