Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
AIList Digest Volume 4 Issue 009
AIList Digest Monday, 20 Jan 1986 Volume 4 : Issue 9
Today's Topics:
Queries - System V Franz & OPS5 & Address for Prof. Bouille &
Knowledge-Engineering Software & Supercomputers and AI &
AI and Process Control & What is a Symbol?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1986 18:50 PLT
From: George Cross <FACCROSS%WSUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU>
Subject: System V Franz?
Does anyone sell or distribute a version of FranzLisp that runs under
Unix System V on a VAX? or another machine?
---- George
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
George R. Cross cross@wsu.CSNET
Computer Science Department cross%wsu@csnet-relay.ARPA
Washington State University faccross@wsuvm1.BITNET
Pullman, WA 99164-1210 (509)-335-6319/6636
Acknowledge-To: George Cross <FACCROSS@WSUVM1>
------------------------------
Date: Thu 16 Jan 86 10:42:00-PST
From: Ted Markowitz <G.TJM@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: OPS5 query
I'd like to try a version of OPS5 on an IBM-PC for exploration (not
necessarily system delivery) and would like some opinions of the various
flavors I've seen advertised. A few I've noticed are TOPSI and OPS83.
Any thoughts on price, speed, portability, etc. would be welcome. I can
digest the responses and post them back to the list.
Thanx muchly.
--ted
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 86 11:06 IST
From: Amir Toister <J65%TAUNIVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU>
Subject: help
CAN ANYONE HELP ME LOCATE:
PROF. F. BOUILLE
LABORATOIRE D'INFORMATIQUE
DES SCIENCE DE LA TERRE,
UNIV. PIERRE ET MARIE CURIE.
PARIS
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 86 15:04:24 est
From: Tom Scott <scott%bgsu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Two questions on knowledge-engineering software
1. Rick Dukes from Symbolics recently gave an interesting talk on
AI/KE to the Northwest Ohio chapter of the ACM. He mentioned an
expert-system-building tool, MRS, from Stanford. I ran across another
reference to MRS in the Winter 1986 issue of "AI Magazine" (p. 107).
Can anyone tell me about the system? What does it do? What
representation and search techniques are available through it? Can it
handle frames? Semantic networks? Certainty factors? How does it
work as an expert-system development environment?
Most importantly, how does a university acquire MRS? I think
Rick told us that it was available to universities essentially for
free. If that is true, then where can we send a tape?
2. Several good works have been published on Prolog, e.g., Clocksin &
Mellish's "Programming in Prolog" and Lloyd's "Foundations of Logic
Programming". It appears, however, that there is no book yet on
"advanced" AI/KE programming techniques in Prolog. The Clocksin &
Mellish text is good as an introduction, the Lloyd book as a
theoretical discussion of logical foundations. A number of us would
like to see a Prolog book that covers topics similar in scope to part
II of Charniak, Riesbeck, and McDermott's "Artificial Intelligence
Programming". Charniak et al. use Lisp; who does the same with
Prolog?
One hope along these lines is an MIT Press book, "The Art of
Prolog" by Sterling and Shapiro. I first saw a reference to it in an
advertisement on p. A-22 of "Communications of the ACM" (January
1986). Has the book been published yet or is it not supposed to come
out until May? Does anyone know about it? What does it cover?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 86 09:47:20 cet
From: JOHND%IDUI1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Subject: Supercomputers and AI
I would like to know if anyone has any references to AI projects
being done on supercomputers. We have a class here on
supercomputers that will be using a Cray XMP/24, an Intel
Hypercube, and perhaps an MPP. I am interested in having a
student do an AI related project, and I'd like it to relate to
some current work. I am also interested in how much AI
software (languages and systems) has been transported to
these supercomputer. All references will be most appreciated.
John Dickinson
Univ. of Idaho
JOHND%IDUI1 (on BITNET)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 86 9:21:58 MET
From: mcvax!delphi.UUCP!mdc@seismo.CSS.GOV
Subject: AI and process control
I am involved in a AI factory automation project.
Can you give me any reference or material on this subject?
Thanks
Maurizio De Cecco
DELPHI S.p.A.
Via Della Vetraia, 11
55049 Viareggio
Italy
[Two magazine articles are Expert Systems, Vol. 1, No. 1, July 1984, and
High Technology, May 1985. The first is a description of the CMU ISIS
scheduling system, the latter a report on factory automation. -- KIL]
------------------------------
Date: 19 Jan 86 17:12:15 EST
From: David.Plaut@K.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: What is a symbol?
This is a request for help....
The idea of a symbol is found throughout AI and Cognitive Science, and seems
to bear considerable theoretical weight. Newell and Simon's Physical Symbol
System Hypothesis, that a machine that carries out processes operating on
symbol structures has the necessary and sufficient means for general
intelligent action, seems to be an expression of the underlying assumptions
of the majority of work in AI.
Yet it seems that no satisfactory definition/description (necessary and
sufficient characteristics) of what is meant by a symbol (sorry about the
pun) has ever been presented. The following rough description seems to be a
standard attempt:
A symbol is a formal entity whose internal structure
places no restrictions on what it may represent in the
domain of interest.
Unfortunately, when combined with the Physical Symbol System Hypothesis,
this notion of symbol creates a problem with regard to so-called
"connectionist" systems.
It is possible to design a connectionist system that exhibits, if not
"general intelligent action", certainly "knowledge-level" behavior, without
any processes operating on symbol structures. The formal, computational
processes of the system are operating below the symbol level, in terms of
the interaction of units representing non-symbolic "micro-features". A
symbol level description of the system only applies to emergent patterns of
micro-features. Unfortunately these patterns fail to qualify as symbols by
the above account due to the fact that it is precisely their internal
structure which determines what they represent. Thus we are left with a
system capable of knowledge-level behavior apparently without symbols.
It seems there are three ways out of this dilemma:
(1) deny that connectionist systems are capable, in
principle, of "true" general intelligent action;
(2) reject the Physical Symbol System Hypothesis; or
(3) refine our notion of a symbol to encompass the operation
and behavior of connectionist systems.
(1) seems difficult (but I suppose not impossible) to argue for, and since I
don't think AI is quite ready to agree to (2), I'm hoping for help with (3)
- Any suggestions?
David Plaut
(dcp@k.cs.cmu.edu)
------------------------------
End of AIList Digest
********************
