So there 's a term " dynamic belief - net " , doesn't mean that. It means time slices. And Srini used those and people use them. Uh. But one of the things I w would like to do over the next , uh , month , it may take more ,  is to st understand to what extent we can not only figure out the constructions for them for multiple worlds and uh sort of what the formalism will look like and where the slots and fillers will be , but also what that would translate into in terms of belief - net and the inferences. So the story is that if you have these probabilistic relational models , they 're set up , in principle , so that you can make new instances and instances connect to each other , and all that sort of stuff , so it should be feasible to set them up in such a way that if you 've got the past tense and the present tense and each of those is a separate  uh , belief structure that they do their inferences with just the couplings that are appropriate. But that 's g that 's , as far as I can tell , it 's  it 's putting together two real hard problems. One is the linguistic part of what are the couplings and  and when you have a certain , uh , construction , that implies certain couplings and other couplings , you know , between let 's say between the past and the present , or any other one of these things and then we have this inference problem of exactly technically how does the belief - net work if it 's got um , let 's say one in  in , you know , different tenses or my beliefs and your beliefs , or any of these other ones of  of multiple models. So um you know , in the long run we need to solve both of those and my suggestion is that we start digging into them both , uh , in a way we that , you know , th hopefully turns out to be consistent , so that the  Um. And sometimes it 's actually easier to solve two hard problems than one
Yeah.
because they constrain each other. I mean if you 've got huge ra huge range of possible choices um  We 'll see. But anyway , so that 's , um
Oh yeah , like uh , I solved the  the problem of um  we were talking about how do you  various issues of how come a plural noun gets to quote " count as a noun phrase " , you know , occur as an argument of a higher construction , but a bare singular stem doesn't get to act that way.