Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
AIList Digest Volume 2 Issue 175
AIList Digest Tuesday, 11 Dec 1984 Volume 2 : Issue 175
Today's Topics:
AI Tools - Tapes on LM & XLISP Availabilty,
AI News & Expert Systems - Recent Articles & Machine Poker,
AI Tools - Parallel Processing and OPS5,
Humor - Lardware & History of Computing Qual,
Seminars - Connection Language for Parallel Computers (MIT) &
Instructionless Learning (CMU)
Course - Sets and Processes (SU)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 10 Dec 1984 at 1125-EST
From: jim at TYCHO.ARPA (James B. Houser)
Subject: Tapes on LM
Hi
We just got a new "industry standard" 9-track tape drive from
Symbolics for our 36??. Has anyone worked out how to convert tape formats
so you can interchange with other processors? We are especially interested
in LMI and UNIX.
Cheers
Jim
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 84 3:52:54 EST
From: "Martin R. Lyons" <991@NJIT-EIES.MAILNET>
Subject: XLISP availabilty
Does anyone have the C source of XLISP laying around? Our copy we had
forwarded to us was destroyed when we had a system crash. I believe it was
version 1.2, but this is a best guess.
If anyone has any information regarding other public domain LISPs written
in C I would appreciate pointers as to who to contact, etc. to get a copy.
As always, thanks in advance...
MAILNET: Marty@NJIT-EIES.Mailnet
ARPA: Marty%NJIT-EIES.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
USPS: Marty Lyons, CCCC/EIES @ New Jersey Institute of Technology,
323 High St., Newark, NJ 07102 (201) 596-2932
"You're in the fast lane....so go fast."
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 84 06:42:05 cst
From: Laurence Leff <leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: AI News
Datamation December 1 1984 Page 172
Ovum ltd. announces their report "The commerical Application of Expert
Systems Technology." It costs $395 and is available from Ovum Ltd.,
14 Penn Rd. London N7 9RD, England (including air mail).
Byte, December 1984
Page 412 - Ad: Walt Lisp for CP/M for $169.00. It is substantially
compatable with Franz Lisp and similar to MacLisp. $169.00
1-800-LIP-4000 from ProCode International 15930 SW Colony Pl.
Portland, Or 97224
Page 355: Review of micro-Prolog: Available from
Programming Logic Systems 31 Crescent Drive, Milford, CT 06460
Electronic News, December 3 1984
Page E
Symbolics has signed a contract valued at > $3,000,000 to supply 50 3600
Series Lisp Machines to Carnegie Group Inc.
Page 44
Announcement of Inforite Tablet which recognizes hand printed characters,
graphics and sketches.
------------------------------
Date: Fri 7 Dec 84 17:49:26-EST
From: SRIDHARAN@BBNG.ARPA
Subject: Excerpt from "games" mag
From the Jan 85 issueof GAMES p6-7
"How do you beat a poker player blessed with the supreme poker face?
That's one of the problems that will confront the winner of a $100,000
poker tournament to be held this month at the Bicycle Club in Bell Gardens,
California.
Whoever takes the event's high-draw competition must face a poker-playing
computer named ORAC in a head-to-head, no-limit game of draw poker. ORAC
was developed by Mike Caro [Why is the program called ORAC?.. nss]
a top Las Vegas poker pro and computer whiz. Not only is ORAC programmed
to beat people, it is also capable of explaining in English the strategy
used.
ORAC has not had an easy life thus far. Its first trial by fire was last
April at the 1984 World Series of Poker in Las Vegas, where it played a
heads-up game against the then reigning world champion of poker, Tom
McEvoy. Though ORAC normally generates its own cards, a human dealer
was used at the World Series to allay any suspicion of cheating. The
computer read its hand with a special optical scanner similar to the ones
used in supermarket checkout counters.
Man and machine played just about dead even for three-quarters of an hour
until ORAC moved all its chips in with an ace-queen of diamonds against
McEvoy's ace-nine off suit. (the game was hold'em, a variation of
seven-card stud). McEvoy held by far the worst hand, but he was lucky
enough to draw a pair of 9's and claim victory. Commented the world champ:
"The fact that the computer went in with the best hand and got drawn
out on proves it's only human" [Hmm.!]
... The computer has proved itself a world-class competitor. As for
the upcoming match at the Bicycle Club, Caro is full of confidence:
"ORAC will not only win," he says sanguinely, "but immediately afterwards,
it will write its own press release, explaining its actions during the match."
------------------------------
Date: 11 December 1984 0140-EST
From: Joseph Kownacki@CMU-CS-A
Subject: Parallel Processing and OPS5
[Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]
OPS3/CM* is a facility on CM* which can execute OPS3/OPS5 programs in
parallel. The current version is not a complete system, but it is capable
of executing a repesentative subset of the TicTacToe program in parallel.
This post is a request for OPS5 test programs, especially those of moderate
size, which demonstrate (or counter-demonstrate) the usefulness of parallel
processing in this application. A complex version of TTT or 8-puzzle
would be immediately handy.
Any assistance or suggestion in obtaining such examples would be greatly
appreciated. Could you also disseminate this message forward to any other
people or groups that may be helpful.
You can obtain background information on OPS3/CM* from my Plan file -
just finger J. Kownacki.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 84 13:12:29 cst
From: "Walter G. Rudd" <rudd%lsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Special purpose hardware
There are still some open questions regarding the optimality of
Buell's sorting malgorithm (generate all N! possible permutations of the
N items to be sorted and then test each permutation to see if it is the
sorted result). Nevertheless, the malgorithm does offer some interesting
properties when one considers the possibility of using an array of
parallel processors to implement the malgorithm. One can show that
an array of N numbers can be sorted in constant time by an N by N!
array of processors and a data memory of the same size plus an
auxiliary memory that consists of one bit per processor.
We divide the set of processors into N! one-dimensional arrays of
N elements. Each of these arrays is reponsible for generating and
testing one of the N! permutations of the items to be sorted.
In the first step, each of the N processors in each array loads one
of the items to be sorted and stores it at a predetermined location
to generate the permutations. In the second step, each processor
compares two neighboring items in its permutation and sets a bit
in the auxiliary memory if the items are in the proper order. Finally,
one of the processors in each array examines its set of N bits in
the auxiliary memory to determine which of the permutations is
in the proper order.
A nice feature of this architecture is that it readily extends
to support descendents of the malgorithm, such as that recently
suggested by Lee and Brownson.
Question: if bad algorithms are called malgorithms, what should we call
architectures designed to implement malgorithms? Cross suggests lardware.
------------------------------
Date: 10 Dec 84 20:06:06 EST
From: Ed.Frank@CMU-CS-UNH
Subject: History of Computing Qual
[Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]
It's clear from an earlier post [on the CMU bboard, asking about
memory cores,] that there is a need in the department for a qual on
the history of various aspects of computing anachronisms, trivia, etc.
Such a qual will be given on Black Friday, at 3pm in the lounge.
Following standard practice, the syllabus will not be available until
next semester, the qual will not be pretested, and many of the
questions will be unclear. This qual will cover all four areas. Send
questions for inclusion in the qual to me and I'll forward them to the
History of Computing Qual committee. Anyone interesting in being on
the qual committee should also send me mail.
Some sample questions (Please don't send me the answers to these
questions. Just send me more questions.):
Computing Systems:
What's a drum card?
Programing Systems:
Describe a technique for getting a computer into an infinite
loop without ever executing a branch instruction. Name a machine
with this feature.
Theory
Describe the fundamental difference between Eniac and the Manchester
Mark I.
AI
What do CAR and CDR mean? On what machine?
------------------------------
Date: 7 Dec 1984 16:35 EST (Fri)
From: "Daniel S. Weld" <WELD%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Seminar - Connection Language for Parallel Computers (MIT)
[Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]
=== === === AI REVOLVING SEMINAR === === ===
ALan Bawden
A Programming Language for
Massively Parallel Computers
or
Help Stamp Out "Pointerthink"!
Wednesday, December 12, 1984 4:00pm 8th floor playroom
The notion of a "pointer" is built deeply into many modern programming
languages. Pointers are routinely used as the cement to build complex data
structures, even where other mechanisms would suffice, because on
conventional sequential computers they are cheap and their hazards are easy
to control. Unfortunately the pointer is expensive and clumsy to support
on a massively parallel computer. The notion of a "connection" will be
offered as a suitable substitute for the pointer. Connections are a
minimal mechanism to allow communication; they are more constrained than
pointers and are less of a hazard in a parallel environment. Most uses of
pointers are trivial enough that connections can be used instead. This
makes it feasible to construct a programming language using connections,
instead of pointers, as the primitive cement for building data structures.
There are many consequences of making the switch from pointers to
connections. Due to the symmetry of the connection mechanism, the concepts
of "object" and "type" become exact duals of the concepts of "message" and
"operation". The notion of "state" emerges not as an aspect of objects,
but as an aspect of the interface between processes. The problems of
method inheritance in a Flavor-like system are revealed to be even nastier
than previously suspected. The "futures" mechanism, popular among parallel
programming languages, emerges as a natural consequence of the connection
mechanism.
------------------------------
Date: 8 December 1984 2230-EST
From: Jeff Shrager@CMU-CS-A
Subject: Seminar - Instructionless Learning (CMU)
[Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]
Instructionless Learning
A Proposal for Dissertation Research
Jeff Shrager
Department of Psychology
Carnegie-Mellon University
On: Friday December 14
At: 10:30am-Noon
In: Baker Hall 336B
We investigate the mechanisms of instructionless learning by asking
undergraduates to "figure out" a programmable toy, without instructions or
advice. From protocols, we obtain learners' hypotheses and the behaviors that
they exhibit which lead to learning a schema for the device. Behaviors
include performing hypothesis testing experiments, explorations of various
aspects of the device and the incomplete schema, and solving problems to
exercise the schema. The present proposal is to construct and
validate a theory of instructionless learning of the BigTrak. The theory
includes mechanisms of hypothesis formation, experimental test construction,
and overall learning control. This work advances theories of concept
learning in complex realistic domains; mental models of complex systems, in
particular their acquisition; and cognitive modelling and its validation.
[Copies of the proposal are available in the Psych Lounge.]
------------------------------
Date: 07 Dec 84 0845 PST
From: Carolyn Talcott <CLT@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Course - Sets and Processes (SU)
[Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]
SETS AND PROCESSES
MATH 294 (PHIL 394) WINTER QUARTER.
COURSE ANOUNCEMENT
provisional time: Fridays, 1.15---3.15.
The standard universe of well-founded sets can be completed in a
natural way so as to incorporate every possible non-well-founded set.
The new completed universe will still model all the axioms of set
theory except that the foundation axiom must be replaced by an
anti-foundation axiom. The first part of the course will be concerned
with this new axiom, its model and its consequences. Several
interesting variants of the axiom will also be examined.
The second part of the course will be concerned with an axiomatic
approach to a general notion of abstract sequential process. These
processes are capable of interacting with each other so that a variety
of operations for their parallel composition will be available. The
notion is intended to form the foundation for an approach to the
semantics of programming languages involving concurrency. A model for
the axiom system can be extracted from recent work of Robin Milner.
But by using the anti-foundation axiom a simple purely set theoretic
model will be given.
Some familiarity with the axiomatic theory of sets and classes will be
presupposed. An understanding of the notion of a class model of ZFC
will be needed. Definition by recursion on a well-founded relation
and Mostowski's collapsing lemma will be relevent. But topics such as
the constructible universe, forcing or large cardinals will NOT be
needed. Some familiarity with computation theory would be useful.
Underlying the model constructions in both parts of the course is a
general result whose apreciation will require some familiarity with
the elements of universal algebra and category theory.
Background references will be available at the start of the course.
Auditors are very welcome. The course may be of interest to both
mathematicians and computer scientists.
PETER ACZEL
------------------------------
End of AIList Digest
********************
