Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
AIList Digest Volume 5 Issue 199
AIList Digest Monday, 17 Aug 1987 Volume 5 : Issue 199
Today's Topics:
Queries - S and P Puzzle & Frame-Based Database,
Tools - Neural Network Simulator,
Comment - Remote Sensing,
Philosophy - The Science of Pointless Debates & Natural Kinds,
Comment - Object-Oriented Programming,
Review - Turing Plays
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 87 12:03 PDT
From: Shrager.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: Re: mr. s & mr. p
Someone here is looking for the source of an old logic problem about two
people named Mr. P. and Mr. S. One of these knows the product of some
numbers and the other one knows their sum. Together they can figure out
the numbers. There is a particular conversation that goes on between
them something like:
Mr. P. I don't know the numbers.
Mr. S. I knew you didn't. Neither do I.
...
and they eventually figure out the numbers.
The reference is for a paper going to the publisher in a few days, so if
anyone can help us with an exact reference and the precise text of the
conversation, it would be greatly appreciated. (Although it might be
interesting to talk about the answer, and how it can be figured out,
right now we're pretty desperate for a citation.)
Thanks in advance.
-- Jeff
------------------------------
Date: 15 Aug 87 16:24:56 GMT
From: amdahl!dlb!plx!titn!jordan@ames.arpa (Jordan Bortz)
Subject: Wanted - FRAMES based database in C,LISP, or SMALLTALK
I'm looking for a good frames based expert system in Smalltalk, C, or LISP.
Public-domain, of course. If LISP, it would be nice if it ran under
FRANZ.
Thanks much in advance!
Jordan
--
=============================================================================
Jordan Bortz Higher Level Software 1085 Warfield Ave Piedmont, CA 94611
(415) 268-8948 UUCP: (decvax|ucbvax|ihnp4)!decwrl!sun!plx!titn!jordan
=============================================================================
------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 87 14:21:01 GMT
From: linus!alliant!sullivan@husc6.harvard.edu (Mike Sullivan)
Subject: Re: Neural Networks
In article <269@ndmath.UUCP>, milo@ndmath.UUCP (Greg Corson) writes:
> I am looking for some information and/or demo programs on Neural Networks
> and how to simulate them on a computer. Any demo programs would be greatly
> appreciated even if they don't do much.
Nerualtech Inc has a product out for beta test which runs on machines from
PC's to Cray's. Dr John Voevodsky is the developer of this product which
is modeled from the biological processes of the human brain cell. You may not
be in the market for such a product, but it might help you to know what other's
are doing.
for info on PLATO/ARISTOTLE contact:
Dr John Voevodsky
Neuraltech Inc
177 Goya Road
Portola Valley, California 94025
#include <std/disclaimer>
______
/ \ \
Michael J Sullivan / \____\ Alliant
sullivan@alliant.uucp / / \ ComputerSystemsCorporation
/____/_______\
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 87 08:31:45 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Remote Sensing
Subject: Re: Reviews of Dreyfus & Dreyfus? [AI is not alone]
> the April 3, 1986, New Scientist, pp. 46-47. Roszak doesn't add much
> personal perspective, but views the book favorably: "AI's record of
> barefaced public deception is unparalleled in the annals of academic
> study." -- KIL]
Not too shabby a comment. I would say look to satellite remote sensing
as another area which has promised a lot and delivered very little for
the dollars put in. [This comment is not mine but people's in RS.]
It also started about the same time as AI [maybe a tiny bit later than
AI]. Remote sensing offers a basis for comparison of the development
of these two sciences.
--eugene miya
NASA Ames Res Ctr. [ex-RS type]
[I'd say it's not really the "sensing" that's failed, but the
automation of perception. That turned out to be far harder than
anyone imagined -- but has to be solved somehow, regardless of
which research effort funds the work. Much of the research done
under the remote sensing label is of equal interest for missile
guidance, autonomous vehicle and robotic vision, and other military
applications. Billing it all to remote sensing is somewhat unfair.
(Of course the same could be said for much of the AI research.)
-- KIL]
------------------------------
Date: 11 Aug 87 17:24:13 GMT
From: hp-sdd!gt%hpfcmt.HP.COM@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (George Tatge)
Subject: The science of pointless debates
I am curious... if we do come to a resolution on this riveting issue of
whether or not AI is a science, what have we accomplished? It seems to
me to be the type of nonsense issue that could only flourish in academia.
Are we trying to decide if AI goes into the humanites section of the
course catelogue? Are we arguing over which department will ultimately
receive the benefit of DOD grants? Maybe but probably not. What I imagine
we are doing is carrying on the great tradition of academicians from one
field taking pot shots at academicians of a different field. Granted, tis
quite an enduring tradition but not really an endearing one.
George (I'll be gone before the flames get here) Tatge
Obviously, nothing I ever say has anything whatsoever to do with the
company I work for.
------------------------------
Date: 13 Aug 87 12:52:52 GMT
From: Gilbert Cockton <mcvax!hci.hw.ac.uk!gilbert@seismo.CSS.GOV>
Reply-to: Gilbert Cockton <mcvax!hci.hw.ac.uk!gilbert@seismo.CSS.GOV>
Subject: Re: Natural Kinds (Re: AIList Digest V5 #186)
In article <MINSKY.12320404487.BABYL@MIT-OZ> MINSKY@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU writes:
>
>In my view, Wittgenstein missed the point because he focussed on
>"structure" only. What we have to do is also take into account the
>"function", "goal", or "intended use" of the definition. My trick is
>to catch the idea between two descriptions, structural and functional.
>Consider a chair, for example.
>
> STRUCTURE: A chair usually has a seat, back, and legs - but
> any of them can be changed in so many ways that it is hard
> to make a definition to catch them all.
>
> FUNCTION: A chair is intended to be used to keep one's bottom
> about 14 inches off the floor, to support one's back
> comfortably, and to provide space to bend the knees.
>
>If you understand BOTH of these, then you can make sense of that list
>of structural features - seat, back, and legs - .......[ cut ]......
>........This also helps us understand how to deal with "toy chair" and
>such matters. Is a toy chair a chair? The answer depends on what you
>want to use it for. It is a chair, for example, for a suitable toy
>person, or for reminding people of "real" chairs, or etc.
a toy chair is a chair if people say it is a chair. I didn't vote
for any lexicographer to go and prescribe our language.
Whilst agreement on structure is possible by an appeal to sense-data
mediated by a culture's categories, agreement on function is less
likely. How do we know that an object has a function? Whilst the prime
use of a chair, is indeed for sitting on, this does not preclude it's
use for other functions - now don't these go back to structure? Or are
they related to intention (i.e. when someone hits you on the head with
a chair)?
Function is a dangerous word, as it pretends a closure well-suited to
the description of a well-ordered, unchanging world. I hope that this
new focus doesn't take AI down the path of American post-war sociology,
where Talcott Parson's functionalism recast the great American dream as
the 'natural' functions of all societies.
In short, nothing, no "das ding an Sich", has a function. People give
things functions. Give a polaroid to someone in a part of the world
where cameras aren't understood, and the function is not going to jump
out and reveal the essence of the object. In fact, museums of
ethnography are full of examples of industrial products put to the
strangest uses. There was also once a spate of jokes about what the
Japanese did when faced with a western water-closet, and recently a
book on Japanese etiquette has warned Westerners about using their
hankerchiefs to blow their nose on - we are told that this is not the
function of a hankerchief in Japan!
So, don't ignore the social. It's the only reality there is. Wittgenstein
may have missed your preferred point, but I think you're ignoring his
observations. Had he been alive in the '60s, I've a feeling that the
growth of sociology would have provided him with more substance for
thought than GPS and the Want-P predicate. BTW - what is the function
of a Want-P predicate, and what would a Japanese do with a hankerchief
afterwards? :-)
Times change, the world changes, knowledge-bases stagnate.
--
Gilbert Cockton, Scottish HCI Centre, Ben Line Building, Edinburgh, EH1 1TN
JANET: gilbert@uk.ac.hw.hci ARPA: gilbert%hci.hw.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk
UUCP: ..{backbone}!mcvax!ukc!hwcs!hci!gilbert
------------------------------
Date: Fri 14 Aug 87 17:37:51-PDT
From: Ken Laws <Laws@KL.SRI.Com>
Subject: Object-Oriented Programming
Those interested in programming methodology (including expert systems)
will probably enjoy reading Russell Abbott's article on "Knowledge
Abstraction" in the August issue of Communications of the ACM. It
clarifies the role of domain knowledge in programming and suggests
that object-oriented programming may be the wave of the future. This
supports the impression of Jeffrey Stone in the Spring issue of AI
Magazine ("The AAAI-86 Conference Exhibits: New Directions in Commercial
AI") that most of the expert system vendors have found rules too limiting
and are incorporating object-oriented features in future software.
A related, but somewhat different, "knowledge level" view is taken
by B. Chandrasekaran in his Fall 1986 IEEE Expert paper: "Generic
Tasks in Knowledge-Based Reasoning: High-Level Building Blocks for
Expert System Design." While not incompatible with object-oriented
programming, his generic tasks are at a level between that of common
shell languages (rules, frames, nets, etc.) and the full specifics
of real-world domain knowledge.
I sense a new view of AI coalescing ...
-- Ken
------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 87 07:29:36 PDT (Friday)
From: Messenger.SBDERX@Xerox.COM
Subject: Re: turing plays
>The NJ section of the NY Times of Aug 2, 1987 on page 8 had an article
on two
>plays based on Turing's life. They are: "A MOST SECRET WAR" by Kevin
Paterson
>which was performed from july 30 - aug 9 at the Philip J Levin Theater
in New
>Brunswick as part of the Rutgers Summerfest and 'BREAKING THE CODE" by
Hugh
>Whitmore scheduled to open on Broadway Nov 15."
>
>I have not read nor seen the plays.
>
>peter beck <pbeck@ardec.arpa>
I saw "Breaking The Code" at the Haymarket Theatre in London, with Derek
Jacobi (of "I, Claudius" fame) playing The Man Himself. What similarity
this bears to the Broadway version about to open I don't know.
The authors have attempted to be as factual as possible and have
interviewed everyone they can find who knew Turing. They have included
all of the remaining transcripts of Turings speeches, the most noticable
of which is the "consider a bowl of porridge" speech he gave at his old
school. His life is traced in a series of shortish episodes spanning
from his schooldays to his death, using to good effect quick scene
changing and flash back techniques. His ideas, philosophy and hopes for
the Universal Computing Machine are put across very well, although the
outright technical content is low.
For what would on the face of it appear to be a minority interest play
it attracted a good deal of critical acclaim and played to full houses
for many months. I thouroughly enjoyed it, and found it thought
provoking and not a little disturbing. The portrayal of his
homosexuality, the court case and subsequent "treatment" for his
"illness" was particularly well done. The script is a character actors
dream, and Derek Jacobi took full advantage of it - I came away feeling
that I had met Turing in all his egocentric glory.
Don't miss it.
-- Hugh
------------------------------
End of AIList Digest
********************
