Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
AIList Digest Volume 1 Issue 019
AIList Digest Monday, 4 Jul 1983 Volume 1 : Issue 19
Today's Topics:
AI Interfacing
Computational Linguistics
Foundations of Perception, AI (2)
A Simple Logic/Number Theory/AI/Scheduling/Graph Theory Problem
AISB/GI Tutorials at IJCAI
Robustness Stories, Program Logs Wanted
Program Verification Award [Long Msg]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue 28 Jun 83 12:56:43-PDT
From: W. Wipke <WIPKE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: AI interfacing
I have a simple question many of you probably have answers to:
when one has an existing application program for which you want to
create an AI front end, should one design the AI part as a separate
task in its own address space and communicate via msgs to the
application program, or should one build the AI part into the same
address space as the application program?
Obviously the former may constrain communication and the
latter may suffer from accidental communication, ie, global conflicts.
What is the best wisdom in this question and where is it
systematically discussed?
Todd Wipke (WIPKE@SUMEX)
Professor of Chemistry
Univ. of Calif, Santa Cruz
------------------------------
Date: Fri 1 Jul 83 13:43:21-PDT
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Computational Linguistics
[Reprinted from the SU-SCORE BBoard.]
Computers and Mathematics with Applications volume 9 number 1 1983 is
a special issue on comutational linguistics. This issue is currently
on the new journals shelf. HL
------------------------------
Date: Tuesday, 28 June 1983, 21:13-EDT
From: John Batali <Batali@MIT-OZ>
Subject: Foundations of Perception, AI
[Reprinted from the Phil-Sci discussion.]
[...]
We aren't in the same position in AI as early physicists were.
Physics started out with a more or less common and very roughly
accurate conception of the physical world. People understood that
things fell, that bigger things hurt more when they fell on you and so
on. Physics was able to proceed to sharpen up the pre-theoretic
understanding people had of the world until very recently when its
discoveries ceased to be simply sharpenings and began to seem to be
contradictions.
"Mind studies" (AI, psychology, philosophy, and so on) don't seem to
have such a common, roughly correct, theory to start with. We don't
even agree on what it is we are supposed to be explaining, how such
explanations ought to go, or what constitutes success.
[John Batali <Batali@MIT-OZ>]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1983 03:13 EDT
From: KDF@MIT-OZ
Subject: Re: Foundations of Perception, AI
[Reprinted from the Phil-Science discussion.]
[...]
<Aside on Physics: I interpret (not perceive) reports on early studies
of heat and motion as indicating that there WASN'T a "common, roughly
corrrect" theory to start with. Even if there was, it was acquired
somehow. One way to view what we are doing is building up enough
experience to construct such theories for computation.>
------------------------------
Date: 30 Jun 1983 1111-CDT
From: CS.CLINE@UTEXAS-20
Subject: a simple logic/number theory/A I/scheduling/graph theory
problem
[Reprinted from the UTexas-20 BBoard.]
I have a trivial problem (at least trivial to state) whose solution
possibly uses elements from many cs/math areas:
Problem 1: Using pennies, nickels, dimes, quarters, and halves find a
set of coins for which any amount less than one dollar can accumulated
and which minimizes the number of coins over those such sets.
You can probably solve this problem in the time it takes to read it,
but proving you have a minimal solution is tricky. I'm interested in
elegant solutions. My own uses a little bit of combinatorics.
Possibly you'd like to take a more general approach:
Problem 2: Using coins of value v[1],...,v[n] find a set of coins for
which any amount less than M can be accumulated and which minimizes
the number of coins over those such sets.
I'd like to see algorithms (with proofs of course) for this one. You
may notice that the approach you apply to Problem 1 does not
generalize to problem 2.
------------------------------
Date: Friday, 24-Jun-83 16:40:33-BST
From: RITCHIE HWC (on ERCC DEC-10) <g.d.ritchie@edxa>
Reply-to: g.d.ritchie%edxa%ucl-cs@isid
Subject: AISB/GI Tutorials at IJCAI
TUTORIAL ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
7th-8th August 1983
Karlsruhe, West Germany
-------------
Lectures on:
Knowledge Representation (R.Brachman, H.Levesque)
Computational Vision (H.Barrow, J.Tenenbaum)
Robotics (K.Kempf)
Expert Systems (L. Erman)
Natural Language Processing (P.Hayes, J.Carbonell)
_____________
Details in IJCAI brochure, obtainable from:
G.D.Ritchie (AISB)
Department of Computer Science,
Heriot-Watt University,
Grassmarket,
Edinburgh EH1 2HJ
SCOTLAND.
(g.d.ritchie%edxa%ucl-cs%isid)
------------------------------
Date: 27 Jun 83 1117 EDT (Monday)
From: Craig.Everhart@CMU-CS-A
Reply-to: Robustness@CMU-CS-A
Subject: Robustness stories, program logs wanted
Needed: descriptions of robustness features--designs or fixes that
have made programs meet their users' expectations better, beyond bug
fixing. E.g.:
- An automatic error recovery routine is a robustness
feature, since the user (or client) doesn't then have to
recover by hand.
- A command language that requires typing more for a
dangerous command, or supports undoing, is more robust than
one that has neither feature, since each makes it harder for
the user to get in trouble.
There are many more possibilities. Anything where a system doesn't
meet user expectations because of incomplete or ill-advised design is
fair game.
Your stories will be properly credited in my PhD thesis at CMU, which
is an attempt to build a discrimination net that will aid system
designers and maintainers in improving their designs and programs.
Please send a description of the problem, including an idea of the
task and what was going wrong (or what might have gone wrong) and a
description of the design or fix that handled the problem. Or, if you
know of a program change log and would be available to answer a
question or two on it, please send it. I'll extract the reports from
it.
Please send stories and logs to Robustness@CMU-CS-A. Send queries
about the whole process to Everhart@CMU-CS-A. I appreciate it--thank
you!
------------------------------
Date: Tue 28 Jun 83 21:35:57-PDT
From: Karl N. Levitt <LEVITT@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Program Verification Award [Long Msg]
[Reprinted from the UTexas-20 BBoard.]
ROBERT S. BOYER AND J STROTHER MOORE: RECIPIENTS OF
THE 1983 JOHN MCCARTHY PRIZE FOR WORK IN PROGRAM
VERIFICATION
An anonymous donor has established the John McCarthy Prize, to be
awarded every two years for outstanding work in Program Verification.
The prize, is intended to recognize outstanding current work -- not
necessarily work of a milestone value. This first award is for work
carried out and published during the past 5 years.
Our committee has decided to give the initial award to Robert S. Boyer
and J Strother Moore for work carried out at the following
institutions: University of Edinburgh, SRI International and,
currently, the University of Texas. Their main achievement is the
development of an elegant logic implemented in a very powerful theorem
prover. Particularly noteworthy about the logic is the use of
induction to express properties about the objects common to programs.
Their theorem prover is among the most powerful of the current
mechanical provers, combining heuristics in support of automatic
theorem proving with a user interface that allows a human to drive
proofs that cannot be accomplished automatically. They have extended
their theorem prover with a Verification Condition Generator for
Fortran that handles most of the features -- even those thought to be
too "dirty" for verification -- of a "real" programming language. They
have used their system to prove numerous applications, including
programs subtle enough to tax human verifiers, and such real
applications as crytographic algorithms and simple flight control
systems; their proofs are always very "honest", using "believable"
specifications and assuming little more than a core set of axioms.
Their work has led to a constant stream of high quality publications,
including the book "A Computational Logic", Academic Press, 1979, and
a comprehensive User's Manual to the theorem prover.
The other individuals nominated by the committee are the following:
Donald Good: for the language Gypsy which enhances the possibility for
verifying concurrent and real-time systems, for the verification
system based on Gypsy, and for carrying out the verification of
numerous "real" systems; Robin Milner: for the Logic of Computable
Functions which has led to elegant formal definitions of programming
languages, to elegant specifications of varied applications, and to a
powerful mechanical theorem prover; Susan Owicki and David Gries: for
a practical method for the verification of concurrent programs; and to
Wolfgang Polak: for the verification of a "real" Pascal compiler,
perhaps the largest and most comlicated program verified to date.
The committee would also like to call attention to interesting and
important work in a number of areas related to program verification.
Included herein are the following: the formal definition of large and
complex programming languages; numerous mechanical verification
systems for a variety of programming languages; the verification of
systems covering such applications as computer security, compilers,
operating systems, fault-tolerant computers, and digital logic;
program testing; and program transformation. This work indicates that
program verification (and its extensions) besides being a rich area
for research gives promise of being usable to achieve reliability when
needed for critical applications.
Robert Constable -- Cornell
Susan Gerhart -- Wang Institute
Karl Levitt (Chairman) -- SRI International
David Luckham -- Stanford
Richard Platek -- Cornell and Odyssey Research Associates
Vaughan Pratt -- Stanford
Charles Rich -- MIT
------------------------------
End of AIList Digest
********************
