Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
AIList Digest Volume 2 Issue 030
AIList Digest Monday, 12 Mar 1984 Volume 2 : Issue 30
Today's Topics:
AI Tools - Production Systems Tools Request,
Documentation Tools - Manual Generators,
Mathematics - Plane vs. Sphere,
Waveform Analysis - ECG Testing,
Humor - Connectionist Dog Modeling & Tail Recursion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 8 Mar 84 14:01:41-PST (Thu)
From: decvax!ittvax!wxlvax!adele @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Production systems tools
Article-I.D.: wxlvax.248
I'm interested in finding out about tools for doing production
systems work. Does anyone know of any such tools that exist (for example,
but not limited to, syntax directed editors, rule maintenance aids, run time
environments, etc.)?
In the best of all possible worlds, what kinds of tools would you like to
see? I'd appreciate any suggestions, advice, gripes, whatever from people
who've used production systems.
Thanks much!
Adele Howe
USMail: ITT-ATC Tele: (203) 929-7341 Ext.976
1 Research Dr. UUCP: decavx!ittvax!wxlvax!adele
Shelton, CT. 06464
------------------------------
Date: 8 Mar 84 20:02:23-PST (Thu)
From: hplabs!zehntel!dual!fortune!rpw3 @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Documentation tools - (nf)
Article-I.D.: fortune.2722
Versions of DEC-10 RUNOFF later than about 1977 had a feature called
the "select" character set, which was a hook to the commenting
conventions of your favorite programming lanuages so that RUNOFF input
could be buried in comments in the code. RUNOFF knew enough to look at
the extension of the source file and set the "select" set from that to
the normal defaults. Typically, <comment-char><"+"> turned stuff on,
and <comment-char><"-"> turned it off.
By using the equivalent of "-ms" displays (.DS/.DE) (which I have
forgotten the RUNOFF version of), you could actually include slected
pieces of the code in the document.
It really helped if the language had a "comment through end of line"
character, though you can make do (as in "C") by using some other
character at the front of each line of a multi-line comment.
An example in "C", written as if nroff knew about this feature and
had been told that the "select" char was "*":
/*+
*.SH
*Critical Algorithms
*.LP
*The Right_One macro requires two's-complement arithmetic,
*as it uses the property of the rightmost "one" remaining
*invariant under negation:
*.DS B
* Right_One(X) = (-X) AND (NOT X)
*.DE
*where "-X" is negation (unary minus) and "AND" and "NOT"
*are full-word bit-wise logical operators.
*-
*/
#define Right_One(x) ((-(x))&(~(x)))
This turned out to be very useful in keeping the documentation up-to-date
with the code. In addition, RUNOFF had a /VARIANT:xyz option that allowed
you to have ".IF xyz", etc., in your document, so that one file could
contain the "man" page (.HLP file), the documentation (.DOC), and the
program logic manual (.PLM). You specified the variant you wanted when
you ran it off. RUNOFF itself was the classic example: the source contained
all of the end-user documentation (a bit extreme, I admit!).
Rob Warnock
UUCP: {sri-unix,amd70,hpda,harpo,ihnp4,allegra}!fortune!rpw3
DDD: (415)595-8444
USPS: Fortune Systems Corp, 101 Twin Dolphin Drive, Redwood City, CA 94065
------------------------------
Date: 11 Mar 1984 23:28 EST (Sun)
From: "Robert P. Krajewski" <RPK%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Manual generators: Lisp systems
One system that allows manual sources to be interspersed with code is LSB, a
system for maintaining large Lisp systems. (It contains a system definition
facility and tools for grappling with getting code to run in various Lisp
dialects including Maclisp, NIL, and Lisp Machine Lisp.) LSB will
``compile'' manuals for either TeX or Bolio (a Lisp document processor that
looks like the *roff family).
My wish list for a large system maintenance program would allow for the
generation of manuals, reference cards, and online documents of various
formats from the same source. Are there any other packages for other
languages that will do this (or at least the subset that LSB offers) ?
``Bob''
------------------------------
Date: 9 Mar 84 6:25:57-PST (Fri)
From: ihnp4!houxm!hou2g!stekas @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Plane = Sphere ?
Article-I.D.: hou2g.194
> In fact, the
>plane and the sphere are topologically equivalent (the plane is a sphere
>if infinite radius) ...
This statement has been made so frequently that I think it's time someone
took exception. A plane and sphere are NOT topologically equivalent, a
sphere has an additional point. That's why plane like coordinate systems
mapped to a sphere always have a point where the coordinates are undefined.
In any case, spherical and planar maps can both be colored with the same
number of colors.
Jim
------------------------------
Date: 9 Mar 84 7:47:10-PST (Fri)
From: harpo!ulysses!unc!mcnc!ecsvax!jwb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: computer ECG, FDA testing of AI programs
Article-I.D.: ecsvax.2140
An extract of a previous submission by me mentioned the overreading of an
ECG interpretation by a cardiologist. What I meant (and what was not clear)
is that the cardiologist is looking at the raw ECG, not the output of the
computer (although a lot of preprocessing is often done which is hidden
from the cardiologist--this is another different problem--at least it looks
like what you would get from a standard ECG machine). On a related issue,
medical decisions regarding the treatment of an individual patient *have* to
be made by the local physician treating the patient (at least that is long
standing medical practice and opinion). The overreading offered by the
remote services is a look at the reconstructed input ECG by a Board
Certified Cardiologist and is intended to be analagous to a "consultation"
by a more experienced and/or specialized physician. The name of the service
is Telemed, not Telenet as I incorrectly typed. Committees of the American
Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology are attempting to
set standards for computer (and human) interpretation of ECG's. A snag is
that different preprocessing of the ECG's by different manufacturers makes
it rather uneconomical to acquire a large number of "standard" ECG's in
machine readable form. I think the FDA is looking at all this and I think
under current law they can step in at their whim. So far they seem to be
waiting for the above groups to present standards (since they don't seem to
have the resources to even start to develop them within the FDA).
Jack Buchanan
Cardiology and Biomedical Engineering
UNC-Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill NC
decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!jwb
------------------------------
Date: 9 Mar 84 7:43:40-PST (Fri)
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!gary @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Connectionist Dog Modeling
Article-I.D.: rocheste.5532
From seismo!harpo!decvax!decwrl!rhea!orphan!benson Fri Mar 2 20:24:18 1984
Date: Thursday, 1 Mar 1984 13:45:43-PST
From: seismo!decvax!decwrl!rhea!orphan!benson
Subject: Re: Seminar Announcement
29-Feb-1984
Garrison W. Cottrell
University of Cottage Street
55 Cottage Street
Rochester, New York 14608
Dear Mr. Cottrell:
Although I was unable to attend your recent seminar, "New
Directions in Connectionist Dog Modeling," I am compelled to
comment on your work as presented in your published works, along
with the new ideas briefly discussed in the seminar announcement.
Having read your "Dog: A Canine Architecture" in late 1981, I
approached "Toward Connectionist Dog Modeling" the following year
with cautious optimism. The former work encouraged me that perhaps
a consistent dog model was, in fact, obtainable; at the same time,
it caused me to wonder why it was desirable. Nontheless, "Toward
Connectionist Dog Modeling" proved to be a landmark in this
emerging science, and my resulting enthusiasm quieted those nagging
suggestions of futility.
You may not be familiar with my work in the field of artificial
ignorance, which, I would like to suggest, shares several goals
with your own work, with different emphasis. "Artificial Ignorance
- An Achievable Goal?" (Benson 79) was the first of my published
papers on the subject. Briefly, it promoted the idea that although
creation of an "artificially intelligent" machine is a worthy
scientific goal, design and implementation of an "artificially
ignorant" one is much more sensible. It presented several
arguments supporting the notion that, compared to artificial
intelligence, artificial ignorance is easily achievable, and is
therefore the logical first step.
As a demonstration of the power of artificial ignorance (AI), I
spent the latter half of 1979 producing CHESS1, a chess system for
the VAX-11/780. CHESS1 was written primarily in LISP, a language
of my own invention (Language for Ingorance Simulation
Programming). In a resounding victory, CHESS1 lost to even the
most ignorant human players, being unable to distinguish between
the pieces. CHESS2, a more sophisticated implementation completed
in April of 1980, lost just as effectively by moving the pieces in
a clockwise progression around the edge of the board.
Ignored by overly ambitious, grant-hungry researchers, artificial
ignorance seemed to become my own personal discipline. After only
three issues, the fledgling SIGIGN newsletter was discontinued, and
the special interest group it served was disbanded.
Undaunted, I published a series of three papers in 1980. The first
two described several techniques I had developed toward simulating
ignorant behavior ("Misunderstanding Human Speech", and "Pattern
Misidentification", Benson 80). The third presented a simple
conversion method for producing artificially ignorant programs from
artificially intelligent ones, using a heuristic bug insertion
algorithm ("Artificial Brain Damage", Benson 80).
Despite these technical triumphs, interest in AI seemed to be
dwindling. By the spring of 1981, I, too, had lost interest,
convinced that my AI research had been little more than an
interesting intellectual exercise.
It is for this reason that your dog modeling thesis so thoroughly
captured my interest. Surely the phrases (to quote from your
announcement) "impoverished phoneme," "decimated world view," and
"no brain" imply "ignorance." And, if I may paraphrase from your
original treatise, the generic dog is essentially the equivalent of
an intellectually stunted human who has been forced to bear fur and
eat off the floor.
Clearly dog modeling and AI have much in common. To prove my
point, I have simulated the Wagging Response in a LISP application,
and am working toward a procedural representation of the Tail
Chasing Activity. The latter is a classic demonstration of genuine
ignorance, as well as a natural application of recursive
programming techniques.
I welcome any suggestions you have on these experiments, and look
forward to the continued success of your dog modeling research.
Sincerely,
Tom Benson
------------------------------
Date: 9 Mar 84 7:45:25-PST (Fri)
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!gary @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Tail Recursion is Iterative
Article-I.D.: rocheste.5535
Date: Thursday, 8 Mar 1984 18:57:59-PST
From: decvax!decwrl!rhea!orphan!benson
Subject: Re: Tail recursion. Please forward to Mr. Sloan.
Dear Mr. Cottrell:
I do realize that in most cases (I.E., everyday programming), tail recursion
can be reduced to iteration. However, in my study of this aspect of dog
modeling, I found the underlying MOTIVATION to be recursive in nature. Clearly
this is not a concept which can be applied to programming outside the AI realm.
(And when I say "AI", I of course mean "AI", not "AI"). My canine subject did
not set out to chase his tail for i equals 1 to n. Nor did he intend to chase
it until some condition was met; the obvious condition being "has the tail
been caught?" In fact, frequent experiments showed that actual tail capture
did not necessarily end the cycle, and it often was not achieved at all before
cessation of the chasing activity. No, a more realistic model is one in which
a bored or confused dog initiates an attempt to catch his tail. During this
process, the previously unseen tail falls into view as the head is turned.
The dog's suspicion is aroused; is this some enemy preparing to strike? This
possibility causes an attempt to catch the tail. This causes the tail to fall
into view.... and so on. The recursion may be terminated either by some
interrupt generated by an unrelated process in the dog's brain, or by forced
intervention of the dog's master. The latter is dangerous, and should be
scrupulously avoided, because it does not allow the dog's natural unwinding
mechanism to be invoked. Thus, the dog may carry unnecessary Tail Chasing
Activity procedure frames around in his brain for years, like a time bomb
waiting to go off. This, indeed, is a subject deserving further study.
In response to your other question: you are welcome to post my AI reports
wherever it seems appropriate.
Tom Benson
------------------------------
Date: 9 Mar 84 20:48:42-PST (Fri)
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!gary @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: sloan's reply to benson's reply to sloan's reply to benson's reply
Article-I.D.: rocheste.5551
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 1984 14:28 EST
From: SLOAN%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: tail recursion: forwarded reply
Gary-
Of course, Mr. Benson knows that ALL time bombs are, by definition,
waiting to go off.
As to the essentially recursive nature of TCA, I simply note that
this view requires a stack of dogs; in my experience stacks of dogs
engage in an entirely different form of behavior, which, under the
proper parity conditions, is truly recursive.
-Ken
[If anyone is Really Tired of This, I will stop sending this rather
convoluted conversation between two friends of mine who don't know
each other but apparently should -gwc]
------------------------------
End of AIList Digest
********************
